Ivan Oransky presented on lessons learned from Retraction Watch over the past decade. Some key points included that common reasons for retractions are duplication, plagiarism, image manipulation and fake data. Studies have found that only 44% of papers with identified issues received a decision from journals within a year, and decisions were slow, opaque and inconsistent. Estimates suggest that only a fraction of papers with problems are caught and retracted. Journals are also often slow to notify readers when papers are retracted. Overall, the system of identifying and correcting the scientific record relies on whistleblowers, though responsibility is unclear.

1. Ivan Oransky, MD
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch
Distinguished Writer In Residence, NYU (Journalism)
Vice President, Editorial, Medscape
@ivanoransky
@retractionwatch
Does Science Self-Correct?
What We’ve Learned at Retraction Watch
REWARD | EQUATOR Conference 2020
Berlin
February 21, 2020

2. Ripped From The Headlines

4. Not Ripped From NEJM

5. Why We Launched Retraction Watch
August 3, 2010

6. The Retraction Watch Database
retractiondatabase.org

7. Leveling Off?
Science, October 26, 2018

8. Common Reasons for Retractions
• Duplication (“self-plagiarism”)
• Plagiarism
• Image Manipulation
• Faked Data
• Fake Peer Reviews
• Publisher Error
• Authorship Issues
• Legal Reasons
• Not Reproducible

9. Why Are Papers Retracted?
Science, October 26, 2018

10. Why Does It Take So Long?

11. ‘Slow, Opaque and Inconsistent’
“After 1 year, journals had communicated decisions for 16/36 (44%)
publications. None of the decision letters specifically addressed each of
the concerns raised. Decisions were no action, correction and retraction
for 9, 3 and 4 publications, respectively: the amounts of duplicate data
reporting and data/reporting discrepancies were similar irrespective of
journal decision…Journal responses to concerns about duplicate
publication, authorship transgressions, and data/reporting discrepancies
were slow, opaque and inconsistent.”

12. Are We Catching Them All?
Allison et al Nature 2016 http://www.nature.com/news/reproducibility-a-tragedy-of-errors-1.19264

13. Are We Catching Them All?
“Overall, 3.8% of published papers contained
problematic figures, with at least half exhibiting
features suggestive of deliberate manipulation. The
prevalence of papers with problematic images has
risen markedly during the past decade.”

14. Who Retracts Most?

15. What Happens to Retracted Papers’
Citations?
“One other phenomenon should be mentioned; there were 64
instances of self‐citation. The vast majority of the
self‐citations did not make mention of the fact that the cited
article had been retracted.”

16. Do Journals Get the Word Out?
Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication,
January 8, 2018

17. Do Journals Get the Word Out?
Of the 812 records for retracted
publications, 40.0% (n=325) did not
indicate that the paper had been
retracted.
Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication,
January 8, 2018

18. Want Free Retraction Alerts?

19. Post-Publication Peer Review On The Rise

20. The Role of The Sleuths
Nick Brown and James Heathers
Elisabeth Bik

21. Whistleblowers to Watch

22. The Buck Stops…
• With journals?
• With publishers?
• With COPE?
• With universities?
• With government agencies?

23. The Buck Stops…
• With journals?
• With publishers?
• With COPE?
• With universities?
• With government agencies?
With lawyers.

24. A “Major Retraction Engine”

25. Signs of Change

26. Signs of Change

27. Contact Info/Acknowledgements
ivan@retractionwatch.com
http://retractionwatch.com
@retractionwatch
Thanks:
The MacArthur Foundation
The Arnold Foundation
The Helmsley Trust
HHMI
Individual donors