Talk:Clare Francis (science critic)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Science

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Retraction Watch reliability

There have been repeated attempts to delete the Retraction Watch reference due to its being a "self-published blog".

Retraction Watch has been taken through the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and found to be reliable. It is not "self-published" in the way that concerns us; it has an oversight board, and the authors are considered experts in the retraction topic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not right. There is no such thing as "expert on retractions". The only people that can assess the validity of scientific research are scientists themselves, not journalists. There is no overseeing board at RW. Oransky, Marcus and their various aliases and pseudonyms (Clare Francis, Francisco Pessoa, etc.) write pretty much anything they like. 2601:240:C480:3E60:E585:7A60:3E0B:9BC0 (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being an expert on retractions no more requires being an expert on the individual sciences than being an expert on traffic patterns would require knowing how a catalytic convertor works. RW does have a board of directors. They also have writers and editors. As such, this is organized like a standard publication rather than a self-publication, and if the editors do some of the writing that makes them no different than some of the most respected journalistic sources. If you wish their reliable source status to be reconsidered, I suggest raising the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, while notifying the people involved here in the issue of the discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]