Talk:Retraction Watch

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)

Use as a reliable source
Discussed on wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197 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
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), generally as the parent organization of RW (e.g. ). --Animalparty! (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Seems reasonable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * : 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
I removed 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)


 * 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)

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)