GEN Exclusives

More »

Best of the Web

More »
Apr 15, 2014 (Vol. 34, No. 8)

Retraction Watch
  • Covers many fields, many entries
  • Navigation menu poorly designed

As scientists we are taught to critically evaluate the literature: what were the caveats of the experiments? Were the authors’ conclusions actually supported by the data? However, sometimes the flaws of published scientific studies are so great—whether by intentional deceit or accidental oversight—that the studies are no longer deemed valid by the powers that be and are formally retracted by the publisher. This actually happens more often than one might imagine, as evidenced by the many entries on, a website devoted to reporting the latest retractions. It really is quite interesting to read about the diversity of circumstances (and the often-ensuing controversy) under which papers are retracted, both in the biological sciences and across different fields. Posts are organized chronologically, with the most recent entries at the top of the page. Users can choose to browse posts by author, journal, country, type, and subject; however, the drop-down menu that allows one to do so is cumbersome to navigate.

  • Key:
  • Strong Points
  • Weak Points
  • Ratings:
  • Excellent
  • Very Good
  • Good

*The opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s) and should not be construed as reflecting the viewpoints of the publisher, Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., the publishing house, or employees and affiliates thereof.


GEN Jobs powered by connects you directly to employers in pharma, biotech, and the life sciences. View 40 to 50 fresh job postings daily or search for employment opportunities including those in R&D, clinical research, QA/QC, biomanufacturing, and regulatory affairs.
More »

Be sure to take the GEN Poll

Easing Restrictions for Terminal Patients

Should the Federal Government Pass a “Right to Try” Bill Allowing Terminally Ill Patients Access to Experimental Medicines?

More »