In The Conversation, the Global Editorial Director of MedPage Today and co-founder of Retraction Watch looks at the recent Rolling Stone investigation and retraction of an article, and suggests that it’s a model scientific and medical journals should be following.
“Through our work on Retraction Watch, we have found that journals – even when they end up retracting, which is not as often as they should – rarely give a full and clear picture of how and why a paper went off the rails,” writes Ivan Oransky. “Retraction notices in science typically do not resemble the explications one finds in newspapers when an article is pulled – and never do they involve a report as detailed as Coll’s overview of the admittedly unique Rolling Stone case.”
Unlike a Rolling Stone: is science really better than journalism at self-correction? (The Conversation, April 9, 2015)
