Show Notes: In this conversation with Will Bachman, Ivan Oransky, a co-founder of Retraction Watch, shares his experience as a medical journalist and with Retraction Watch. Ivan explains that his friend and co-founder, Adam Marcus had uncovered a massive story about scientific fraud in Western Massachusetts, where an anesthesiologist had made up all clinical data. Adam, who was managing editor of an publication called Anesthesiology News got the scoop on the story, and Ivan, who was impressed with the story, suggested they start a blog about retraction notices, it turned out there were far more happening than previously thought.  13 and a half years later, Retraction Watch is still going strong and has a large audience. Adam and Ivan are volunteers but have four staff two of whom run a database of retractions that was recently acquired by CrossRef, a nonprofit that tracks scientific data and papers. The other two staff continue to contribute to the journalism work they started 13 and a half years ago, while Ivan and Adam still supervisor edit and direct it. How to Evaluate an Article Ivan shares his advice on how to evaluate an article in a medical journal or any published article. He emphasizes the importance of showing one's work and examining the evidence used to reach a conclusion. He explains that, when looking at articles, it is crucial to consider the original sources, citations, and the journal's track record of quality. He also emphasizes the importance of humility in making claims and not making pronouncements about things he or she doesn't know anything about. He also warns against trusting credentials to suggest expertise, as it can be misleading, Ivan shares the example of a time when he was asked to peer review papers about COVID-19, simply because he had co-authored a letter about retractions of work. However, he is not an expert on the subject. Ivan believes that an expert should only be asked to peer review papers that they believe are likely to hold up or should not be published.  Leading Causes of Retraction Ivan explains that factors that commonly lead to a retraction. Two-thirds of retractions are for misconduct. This number is consistent across various works and he goes on to explain that there are several definitions of misconduct to take into consideration, including fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. About 20 percent of the time, it’s due to a what’s known as honest error, and Ivan offers a few examples.  The deeper cause is the requirement that researchers must publish in certain places to get a job in academia, tenure, promotion, and prizes. This drives people to do all sorts of things, and while this drives most people to work harder and try to work more efficiently, others may take a different approach. In fact, Ivan states that 2 percent of researchers admit to committing misconduct.  The Replication Crisis Ivan talks about the replication crisis, which has been a topic of interest in the social sciences and hard sciences. When Retraction Watch was first launched, there were about 400 retractions from journals a year. Last year, there were more than 10,000, a big increase despite the rising number of papers published. The root cause of this issue is the same problem: replications are not new research or findings and should be cherished and prized, but they are not. Big journals don't like to publish replications, so they don't reward new research. To get into a big journal, researchers need to publish new research, which is simple behavioral incentive economics. The discussion turns to incentives for people to write about scientific misconduct and fraud. Ivan states that, while there is more incentive not to write retractions, he cites a page on Retraction Watch that has dozens of stories from people committed to revealing issues with research, including well-known figures. These individuals face legal risks, such as lawsuits, and are usually not paid for this work.