Talk:Retraction Watch

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticality

This was discussed in Skepticality 270 if anyone wants to listen to it and use it for expansion/citations. Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use as a reliable source

Discussed on wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Retraction Watch Credentials mentioned on http://www.chronicle.com/article/Meet-Retraction-Watch-the/233373/ Jim1138 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Center for Scientific Integrity into Retraction Watch

The Center for Scientific Integrity appears functionally identical to Retraction Watch: its only 2 employees are the writers of RW. I've found no evidence of significant, independent coverage of the center (as opposed to the blog it operates) that warrants a separate stand-alone article: it's generally mentioned in passing (if at all)[1], generally as the parent organization of RW (e.g. [2][3][4][5]). --Animalparty! (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seems reasonable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per nom. Also, the only source I could find that mentions CSI but not RW was this, which extensively cites a CSI board member but mentions CSI itself only in passing. Firefangledfeathers 04:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the tally seems to be 3 yays, zero nays, I went ahead and redirected Center for Scientific Integrity to Retraction Watch. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed material

I removed

The Washington Post^[1] and The Guardian^[2] have reported about Retraction Watch.

References

^ Barbash, Fred (2014-07-29). "Academia's seamier side: Lying, cheating and fraud". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-08-06.
^ Goldacre, Ben (2011-01-15). "Now you see it, now you don't: why journals need to rethink retractions". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-08-06.

from the article. I think claims like "Look who reported on us!" are promotional and uninformative. Posting here to explain the removal and also to keep the sources around for future use. Firefangledfeathers 05:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "look who reported on us" refs, they are reports about RW because it is important. By your criterion, almost any article about any web site could be removed. Those articles reflect impact and should be restored. I can't imagine what article reporting about RW you think should be allowed if not those. Nicmart (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

This section doesn't really address the impact of the site, which is now considerable. It is the go-to place for researchers to learn the latest about retractions and related scientific controversies. Nicmart (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Barbash, Fred (2014-07-29). "Academia's seamier side: Lying, cheating and fraud". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-08-06.

[2] Goldacre, Ben (2011-01-15). "Now you see it, now you don't: why journals need to rethink retractions". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-08-06.

[1]

[2]