These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.
- Overall, we rate Retraction Watch Pro-Science based on proper scientific sourcing of content and a clean fact-check record.
Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: United States
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
Founded in 2010, Retraction Watch is a blog that reports on retractions of scientific papers. The blog is produced by science writers Ivan Oransky (Vice President and Global Editorial Director of MedPage Today) and Adam Marcus (editor of Gastroenterology & Endoscopy News).
Funded by / Ownership
Retraction Watch is owned by the Center for Scientific Integrity, a New York City-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit “to promote transparency and integrity in science and scientific publishing, and to disseminate best practices and increase efficiency in science.” There does not seem to be a source of revenue, however, The Center for Scientific Integrity has been supported by grants from organizations including the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, and the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Trust.
Analysis / Bias
In review, Retraction Watch does exactly as described, they report on scientific studies that have been removed from journals and publications. An example is this Journal retracts paper claiming that group of Indigenous Americans were Black Africans. They also report on studies that should be retracted but have not such as this The bizarre anti-vaccine paper a Florida professor has been trying to have retracted to no avail. When it comes to sourcing, Retraction Watch relies on journals and credible sources. In general, this is a pro-science source that is factual.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate Retraction Watch Pro-Science based on proper scientific sourcing of content and a clean fact-check record. (D. Van Zandt 11/27/2016) Updated (09/22/2023)
Last Updated on September 22, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.