ArsTechnica’s Policy On Retracted Papers

You are viewing an old revision of this post, from November 3, 2019 @ 13:27:06. See below for differences between this version and the current revision.

ArsTechnica is a site that covers science and technology. There are a lotof sites that do this, obviously, but what separates ArsTechnica from the pack for me is typified by its handwringing over a problem that most other sites don’t even recognize or care about–if you’re writing about science, what do you do when years later the research you were writing about turns out to be wrong or even fradulent?

ArsTechnica senior science editor John Timmer writes about this problem highlighting two recently retracted papers that had been covered by the site. One paper was retracted when other researchers pointed out some errors that related to the software used to analyze the data, but the other paper was actually fraudulent–a thorough investigation found the authors had never conducted the experiments they had written about.

Timmer writes,

When Ars discovers that a paper we’ve covered has been retracted, we make an effort to go back and provide a notice of it in our article. But until recently, we didn’t have a formal policy regarding what that notice should look like, and we typically didn’t publish anything new to indicate a retraction had occurred.

Having given it some thought, that practice seems insufficient. A failure to prominently correct the record makes it easier for people to hang on to a mistaken impression about our state of understanding. Perhaps more importantly, not reporting a retraction leaves people unaware of a key aspect of science’s self-correcting nature and how retractions can sometimes actually advance our scientific understanding.

. . .

Those of you who follow the steady flow of scientific foibles immortalized at Retraction Watch will know that it’s often not possible to find out why some papers are retracted, much less draw larger lessons from the retraction. But we’ll do our best to continue to keep you notified when the research we cover doesn’t hold up to critical review by the rest of the field.

Of course, we have to know about the retraction for that to happen. If you see that we’ve missed a case, please make sure to get in touch and let us know. Either email me directly, or use our contact form.

On the one hand, that is very forward thinking of Timmer and ArsTechnica. Anyone who visits the original article about the fradulent paper on ArsTechnical now sees a bold indication at the top of the article:

EDITOR’S NOTE: The paper this report was based on contained fraudulent data and is in the process of being retracted.

This will hopefully help diminish the number of situations where people continue to share older articles about studies that were long since retracted or disproven.

But a bigger issue is why other outlets don’t do more to make readers aware when a story was based on a now-retracted paper.

For example, in 2014 The New York Times published a story about UCLA researcher Michael LaCour’s study that found simple, short conversations by canvassers changed people’s minds about gay marriage.

The problem is that the study was fraudulent–LaCour apparently fabricated the data that the study as based on. LaCour’s paper was retracted by Science five months after the New York Times article came out.

The New York Times published at least five articles about the LaCour retraction, including a piece about how researchers may be “skewing research studies and broadening their findings.” Yet if you visit the original Times story about the LaCour study five years later, there is still no indication or correction that the study the entire story is based upon turned out to be fraudulent.

Post Revisions:

Changes:

November 3, 2019 @ 13:27:06Current Revision
Content
Unchanged: <!-- wp:paragraph --> Unchanged: <!-- wp:paragraph -->
Unchanged: <p><a href="https:/ /arstechnica.com/" class="ek-link" >ArsTechnica</a> is a site that covers science and technology. There are a lotof sites that do this, obviously, but what separates ArsTechnica from the pack for me is typified by <a href="https:/ /arstechnica.com/science/ 2019/10/a-tale- of-two-retractions/" class="ek-link">its handwringing</a> over a problem that most other sites don't even recognize or care about--if you're writing about science, what do you do when years later the research you were writing about turns out to be wrong or even fradulent?</p> Unchanged: <p><a href="https:/ /arstechnica.com/" class="ek-link" >ArsTechnica</a> is a site that covers science and technology. There are a lotof sites that do this, obviously, but what separates ArsTechnica from the pack for me is typified by <a href="https:/ /arstechnica.com/science/ 2019/10/a-tale- of-two-retractions/" class="ek-link">its handwringing</a> over a problem that most other sites don't even recognize or care about--if you're writing about science, what do you do when years later the research you were writing about turns out to be wrong or even fradulent?</p>
Unchanged: <!-- /wp:paragraph --> Unchanged: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->
Unchanged: <!-- wp:paragraph --> Unchanged: <!-- wp:paragraph -->
Unchanged: <p>ArsTechnica senior science editor John Timmer writes about this problem highlighting two recently retracted papers that had been covered by the site. One paper was retracted when other researchers pointed out some errors that related to the software used to analyze the data, but the other paper was actually fraudulent--a thorough investigation found the authors had never conducted the experiments they had written about.</p> Unchanged: <p>ArsTechnica senior science editor John Timmer writes about this problem highlighting two recently retracted papers that had been covered by the site. One paper was retracted when other researchers pointed out some errors that related to the software used to analyze the data, but the other paper was actually fraudulent--a thorough investigation found the authors had never conducted the experiments they had written about.</p>
Unchanged: <!-- /wp:paragraph --> Unchanged: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->
Unchanged: <!-- wp:paragraph --> Unchanged: <!-- wp:paragraph -->
Unchanged: <p>Timmer writes,</p> Unchanged: <p>Timmer writes,</p>
Unchanged: <!-- /wp:paragraph --> Unchanged: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->
Unchanged: <!-- wp:quote --> Unchanged: <!-- wp:quote -->
Unchanged: <blockquote class="wp-block- quote"><p>When Ars discovers that a paper we've covered has been retracted, we make an effort to go back and provide a notice of it in our article. But until recently, we didn't have a formal policy regarding what that notice should look like, and we typically didn't publish anything new to indicate a retraction had occurred.</p><p>Having given it some thought, that practice seems insufficient. A failure to prominently correct the record makes it easier for people to hang on to a mistaken impression about our state of understanding. Perhaps more importantly, not reporting a retraction leaves people unaware of a key aspect of science's self-correcting nature and how retractions can sometimes actually advance our scientific understanding.</p><p>. . .</p><p>Those of you who follow the steady flow of scientific foibles immortalized at Retraction Watch will know that it's often not possible to find out why some papers are retracted, much less draw larger lessons from the retraction. But we'll do our best to continue to keep you notified when the research we cover doesn't hold up to critical review by the rest of the field.</p><p>Of course, we have to know about the retraction for that to happen. If you see that we've missed a case, please make sure to get in touch and let us know. Either email me directly, or use our contact form.</p></blockquote> Unchanged: <blockquote class="wp-block- quote"><p>When Ars discovers that a paper we've covered has been retracted, we make an effort to go back and provide a notice of it in our article. But until recently, we didn't have a formal policy regarding what that notice should look like, and we typically didn't publish anything new to indicate a retraction had occurred.</p><p>Having given it some thought, that practice seems insufficient. A failure to prominently correct the record makes it easier for people to hang on to a mistaken impression about our state of understanding. Perhaps more importantly, not reporting a retraction leaves people unaware of a key aspect of science's self-correcting nature and how retractions can sometimes actually advance our scientific understanding.</p><p>. . .</p><p>Those of you who follow the steady flow of scientific foibles immortalized at Retraction Watch will know that it's often not possible to find out why some papers are retracted, much less draw larger lessons from the retraction. But we'll do our best to continue to keep you notified when the research we cover doesn't hold up to critical review by the rest of the field.</p><p>Of course, we have to know about the retraction for that to happen. If you see that we've missed a case, please make sure to get in touch and let us know. Either email me directly, or use our contact form.</p></blockquote>
Unchanged: <!-- /wp:quote --> Unchanged: <!-- /wp:quote -->
Unchanged: <!-- wp:paragraph --> Unchanged: <!-- wp:paragraph -->
Unchanged: <p>On the one hand, that is very forward thinking of Timmer and ArsTechnica. Anyone who visits the original article about the fradulent paper on ArsTechnical now sees a bold indication at the top of the article:</p> Unchanged: <p>On the one hand, that is very forward thinking of Timmer and ArsTechnica. Anyone who visits the original article about the fradulent paper on ArsTechnical now sees a bold indication at the top of the article:</p>
Unchanged: <!-- /wp:paragraph --> Unchanged: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->
Unchanged: <!-- wp:quote --> Unchanged: <!-- wp:quote -->
Unchanged: <blockquote class="wp-block- quote"><p><strong>EDITOR'S NOTE: The paper this report was based on contained fraudulent data and is in the process of being retracted.</strong> </p></blockquote> Unchanged: <blockquote class="wp-block- quote"><p><strong>EDITOR'S NOTE: The paper this report was based on contained fraudulent data and is in the process of being retracted.</strong> </p></blockquote>
Unchanged: <!-- /wp:quote --> Unchanged: <!-- /wp:quote -->
Unchanged: <!-- wp:paragraph --> Unchanged: <!-- wp:paragraph -->
Unchanged: <p>This will hopefully help diminish the number of situations where people continue to share older articles about studies that were long since retracted or disproven.</p> Unchanged: <p>This will hopefully help diminish the number of situations where people continue to share older articles about studies that were long since retracted or disproven.</p>
Deleted: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  
Deleted: <!-- wp:paragraph -->  
Deleted: <p>But a bigger issue is why other outlets don't do more to make readers aware when a story was based on a now-retracted paper.</p>  
Deleted: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  
Deleted: <!-- wp:paragraph -->  
Deleted: <p>For example, in 2014 <em>The New York Times</em> <a href="https:/ /archive.is/3yt9j" class="ek-link" >published</a> a story about UCLA researcher Michael LaCour's study that found simple, short conversations by canvassers changed people's minds about gay marriage.</p>  
Deleted: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  
Deleted: <!-- wp:paragraph -->  
Deleted: <p>The problem is that the study was fraudulent--LaCour apparently fabricated the data that the study as based on. LaCour's paper was retracted by <em>Science</em> five months after the New York Times article came out. </p>  
Deleted: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  
Deleted: <!-- wp:paragraph -->  
Deleted: <p><em>The New York Times</em> published at least five articles about the LaCour retraction, including a piece about how researchers may be "skewing research studies and broadening their findings." Yet if you visit the original Times story about the LaCour study five years later, there is still no indication or correction that the study the entire story is based upon turned out to be fraudulent.</p>  
Deleted: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->  
Deleted: <!-- wp:paragraph -->  
Deleted: <p></p>  
Unchanged: <!-- /wp:paragraph --> Unchanged: <!-- /wp:paragraph -->

Note: Spaces may be added to comparison text to allow better line wrapping.

Leave a Reply