Watchdog Science Journalism: How Retraction Watch Fosters Accountability in Science

Abstract

Although science reporters have long been urged to adopt the role of the journalistic watchdog, scholars have not extensively examined how this role can be understood conceptually or in practice. This exploratory case study examines Retraction Watch, founded in 2010, as an illuminating example of watchdog science journalism that holds science to account around the epistemological claim, central to science’s cultural authority, that it is self-correcting. Drawing on a thematic analysis of interviews with senior staff at the site and scholars who study retractions, the study finds that the site has undertaken accountability journalism of the little-scrutinised phenomenon of retractions, has reported systematically on retractions, has questioned and determined the reasons for retractions, has created a database of retractions to aid science in its self-correction, and has provided knowledge-based journalism for its specialist public interested in scientific integrity. The article argues that Retraction Watch has expanded beyond journalism to operate as a novel journalistic hybrid institution that combines science journalism with the scientific infrastructure of its database, activities underpinned by a normative value of accountability. As a journalistic hybrid institution, it illustrates what future organisational forms of science journalism might look like.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Media and Communication, 2026 · DOI ↗