Talk:Retraction Watch
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
Skepticality edit
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)
Use as a reliable source edit
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)
Proposed merge of Center for Scientific Integrity into Retraction Watch edit
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)
- Support Seems reasonable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Removed material edit
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)