Ivan Oransky
New York, United States
Articles by Ivan Oransky
Nothing but the Truth: Keeping Science in Scientific Research
Falsifying data, fabricating references, peer-reviewing your own manuscript. There’s no shortage of ways that someone can damage the integrity of scientific research. Enter Ivan Oransky, MD, co-founder of Retraction Watch: an online database tracking published manuscripts that have been retracted for myriad reasons. Efforts like Retraction Watch are often some of the first—and last—lines of defense protecting knowledge and truth.
The Jason Arday scandal isn’t as simple as DEI gone wrong
The Jason Arday scandal isn’t as simple as DEI gone wrong (washingtonpost.com) The Jason Arday scandal isn’t as simple as DEI gone wrong By Adam Marcus; Ivan Oransky 2026081319310200 The resignation of Jason Arday from the University of Cambridge amid credible accusations of plagiarism and other potential misconduct has critics of diversity, equity and inclusion saying "we told you so." Arday, 41, is a Black professor of sociology and an apparent fabulist.
JD Supra Readers' Choice Awards 2026 - Meet Our Top Authors | Theresa Defino
LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy. Select Accept to consent or Reject to decline non-essential cookies for this use. You can update your choices at any time in your settings.
Retraction Reactions
July-August 2025 Volume 113, Number 4 Retracted papers are uncommon in research, but as they have increased, more than 20 Nobel laureates—some 2 percent of the 1,000-plus people and organizations who have won the prize—have retracted scientific papers. Altogether, those 22 winners have retracted 41 articles.
The Keys to Living Better, Longer
Many chronic diseases are not preventable—but some are, or at least come with modifiable risk factors. In his new book, Super Agers: An Evidence-Based Approach to Longevity (Simon & Schuster), Eric Topol, M.D., the executive vice-president of Scripps Research, the largest nonprofit biomedical research institution in the United States, explores what can be done to address the growing rates of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and neurodegenerative disease in order to help people live better, longer.
Topol on Extending Lifespan, Starting with Disease Prevention
In this timely interview, Eric Topol, MD, discusses with Ivan Oransky, MD, key clinical takeaways from his new book, Super Agers: An Evidence-Based Approach to Longevity, published this month by Simon & Schuster. On the docket: what physicians can do now to help prevent the top three age-related diseases – cardiovascular disease, cancer, and neurodegenerative disease – in their patients, the overlooked role of the immune system, and why GLP-1s are outperforming all expectations.
When Do Scholarly Retractions Become a Form of Censorship?
Adam Marcus and I co-founded Retraction Watch in 2010. We operate under the auspices of the Center for Scientific Integrity, a US-based non-profit organisation we co-founded in 2014. Our motto is, “Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process.” When it comes to academic publishing, which is a core field we monitor, a retraction represents an episode in which a paper is designated by its publisher as being so flawed that the conclusions can’t be relied upon.
Why Universities Should Make Misconduct Reports Public
Introduction In 2012, the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) announced it had found Terry Elton, a researcher at The Ohio State University, had committed misconduct by falsifying or fabricating several Western blots in his papers and grant applications.1 The case seemed straightforward.
Scientific Integrity and Retractions: A Talk By Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch
Biography: Ivan Oransky is editor-in-chief of The Transmitter, having previously served in editorial leadership roles at outlets including Medscape, Reuters Health and Scientific American. He is a distinguished writer-in-residence at New York University’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, where he teaches medical journalism and co-founder of Retraction Watch, which reports on scientific retractions.
How to Help Patients with Agitation Due to Dementia
At Stake Agitation is common with all forms of dementia, seen in 30% to 50% of affected individuals and with rates increasing as high as 75% in moderate to severe disease states.1 Agitation is defined by severe behaviors that involve physical or verbal aggression or excessive motor activities and that cause distress and/or disability that go beyond that expected from the cognitive impairment alone.2 Examples include screaming, cursing, hitting, kicking, breaking things, intrusive wandering,...
The Discipline of Last Resort
If you’re anything like us, when you take a pill, drive over a bridge, or make other important decisions, you want to know those choices are based on solid evidence.
The Scientific Literature Can’t Save You Now
Listen1.0x 0:008:35 Listen to more stories on the Noa app. Twice during his Senate confirmation hearings at the end of last month, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., America’s new health secretary, brought up a peer-reviewed study by a certain “Mawson” that had come out just the week before. “That article is by Mawson,” he said to Senator Bill Cassidy, then spelled out the author’s name for emphasis: “M-A-W-S-O-N.” And to Bernie Sanders: “Look at the Mawson study, Senator … Mawson.
The Science We Depend On: Behind Alzheimer's Disease with Charles Piller
Investigative journalist Charles Piller walks Ivan Oransky, MD, editorial advisor to MedCentral and cofounder of Retraction Watch, through what he calls his “scientific detective story.” After uncovering fraudulent data behind Alzheimer’s disease research’s most foundational causal theory – the beta-amyloid protein theory — he had to dig deeper. Even more disturbing was perhaps the response of the regulatory agencies and scholarly journals.
Scientific Integrity and Retractions: A Talk By Ivan Oransky
Scientific Integrity and Retractions: A Talk By Ivan Oransky October 1, 2024 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm Dr. Oransky will explore the complexities of scientific retractions, misconduct, and the importance of transparency in research. Drawing on his experience as co-founder of Retraction Watch and his work in scientific journalism, Dr. Oransky will discuss the hidden factors affecting scientific integrity and how the research community can promote accountability.
The issue with special issues
Advanced search Accountability in Research Ethics, Integrity and Policy Latest Articles Submit an article Journal homepage Full Article Figures & data References Citations Metrics Reprints & Permissions Read this article /doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2024.2404435?needAccess=true "The issue with special issues." Accountability in Research, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), pp. 1–2 Disclosure statement Alison Abritis, Adam Marcus, and Ivan Oransky are members of the Retraction Watch team.
Scientific fraud: The case of the Spanish university rector should prompt change to ranking system
Scientific ethics Tribune Opinion articles written in the style of their author." These texts are to be based on verified facts and must be respectful towards people, even though their actions may be criticized.
El episodio del rector de Salamanca debería provocar un cambio en el sistema
Microsoft se preocupa por tu privacidad Microsoft y nuestros proveedores de terceros usan cookies para almacenar y acceder a información como identificadores únicos para entregar, mantener y mejorar nuestros servicios y anuncios. Si está de acuerdo, MSN y Microsoft Bing personalizarán el contenido y los anuncios que vea.
El episodio del rector de Salamanca debería provocar un cambio en el sistema
Desde la lejanía, la toma de posesión de Juan Manuel Corchado como rector de la Universidad de Salamanca a principios de este año probablemente parecía un broche de oro natural y bien merecido a la carrera de este destacado académico. Al fin y al cabo, Corchado, un científico informático muy prolífico, es uno de los investigadores más citados de España, lo que demuestra la alta consideración de que goza su trabajo entre sus compañeros.
An epidemic of scientific fakery threatens to overwhelm publishers
A record number of retractions — more than 10,000 scientific papers in 2023. Nineteen academic journals shut down recently after being overrun by fake research from paper mills. A single researcher with more than 200 retractions. The numbers don’t lie: Scientific publishing has a problem, and it’s getting worse. Vigilance against fraudulent or defective research has always been necessary, but in recent years the sheer amount of suspect material has threatened to overwhelm publishers.
Research publishers are being overwhelmed by fraudulent papers - The Washington Post
Adam Marcus, editorial director for primary care at Medscape, and Ivan Oransky, editor in chief of the Transmitter and a journalism professor at New York University, are the co-founders of Retraction Watch. A record number of retractions — more than 10,000 scientific papers in 2023. Nineteen academic journals shut down recently after being overrun by fake research from paper mills. A single researcher with more than 200 retractions.
Key Abortion Paper Retracted
Publish date: February 8, 2024 A journal and publisher have retracted three papers about abortion, including one that has been used in court cases to support the suspension of FDA approval for mifepristone, aka an “abortion pill.” Sage, the publisher of Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology, announced the retractions yesterday and posted a retraction notice covering the three articles.
Key Abortion Paper Retracted
A journal and publisher have retracted three papers about abortion, including one that has been used in court cases to support the suspension of FDA approval for mifepristone, aka an "abortion pill." Sage, the publisher of Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology, announced the retractions yesterday and posted a retraction notice covering the three articles.
Rooting out scientific misconduct
Ivan Oransky ivan@retractionwatch.com and Barbara Redman br68@nyu.eduAuthors Info & Affiliations Scientific misconduct is an issue rife with controversy, from its forms and definitions to the policies that guide how allegations are handled. A survey published nearly 15 years ago reported that 2% of researchers said they had fabricated or falsified data in their published work. This is not just an academic issue.
Rooting out scientific misconduct
Scientific misconduct is an issue rife with controversy, from its forms and definitions to the policies that guide how allegations are handled. A survey published nearly 15 years ago reported that 2% of researchers said they had fabricated or falsified data in their published work. This is not just an academic issue. Fake data promote ineffective or even dangerous treatments, for example, and thwart the discovery of real solutions for society.
Retraction Watch and Crossref: Collaborating to Improve the Assessment of Scholarly Outputs
Research integrity and issues of trust around scholarly publishing and the peer review process are under renewed scrutiny as editors deal with issues like plagiarism, artificial intelligence-generated papers, duplicate submissions, paraphrasing, image manipulation and duplication, fabricated data, and the challenge of paper mills that do all of these things.
Salami slicing and other kinds of scientific misconduct: A faux pas for the author, a disaster for science
Köstenbach, Tamara and Oransky, Ivan. "Salami slicing and other kinds of scientific misconduct: A faux pas for the author, a disaster for science: An interview by Tamara Köstenbach with Ivan Oransky in October 2022 for the research project “Summa cum fraude – Wissenschaftliches Fehlverhalten und der Versuch einer Gegenoffensive”" Information – Wissenschaft & Praxis, vol. 75, no. 1, 2024, pp. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1515/iwp-2023-2041 Köstenbach, T. & Oransky, I. (2024).
When Being a Physician Gets Personal
Using his recent books as context, Sandeep Jauhar, MD, opens up to Ivan Oransky, MD, about the lessons he’s learned – both personally and professionally – on his journey from intern to practicing cardiologist to caregiver and back, after his father succumbed to Alzheimer’s disease.
Welcome to The Transmitter
I can still vividly remember the first time I held a human brain in my hands. I was a first-year medical student, and all I could think was, “Wow, this person’s entire life, memories and experience in these few pounds.
Opinion | When Scholars Sue Their Accusers
Francesca Gino has made headlines twice since June: once when serious allegations of misconduct involving her work became public, and again when she filed a $25-million lawsuit against her accusers, including Harvard University, where she is a professor at the business school.
How bibliometrics and school rankings reward unreliable science
Ivan Oransky, cofounder, distinguished journalist in residence, and editor in chief13, Adam Marcus, cofounder and editorial director of primary care14, Alison Abritis, researcher and affiliate assistant professor15 1Retraction Watch/Center for Scientific Integrity, New York, New York, USA 2Arthur Carter Journalism Institute, New York University, New York, New York 3Spectrum, Simons Foundation, New York, New York 4Medscape, New York, New York 5University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida If we...
There's far more scientific fraud than anyone wants to admit
Scientific misconduct has enjoyed some limelight lately. The president of Stanford, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, resigned last month after a series of investigations exposed serious problems in his research; an independent review of Tessier-Lavigne’s work found no evidence that he falsified data himself but concluded that his research failed standards “of scientific rigor and process” and that he failed to correct the record on multiple occasions.
There’s far more scientific fraud than anyone wants to admit
Scientific misconduct has enjoyed some limelight lately. The president of Stanford, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, resigned last month after a series of investigations exposed serious problems in his research; an independent review of Tessier-Lavigne’s work found no evidence that he falsified data himself but concluded that his research failed standards “of scientific rigor and process” and that he failed to correct the record on multiple occasions.
Science Corrects Itself, Right? A Scandal at Stanford Says It Doesn’t
By now you may have heard about the resignation of Stanford University president Marc Tessier-Lavigne. The move came last month after a report by a special committee of the university’s Board of Trustees found Tessier-Lavigne had, among other things, “failed to decisively and forthrightly correct mistakes in the scientific record” on at least four different occasions.
Former Yale Professor Faked Data, Says Federal Watchdog
close Please confirm that you would like to log out of Medscape. If you log out, you will be required to enter your username and password the next time you visit. Log out Cancel A liver researcher who worked at Yale University for 15 years faked data in multiple papers and grant applications, according to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI).
What's to be done about biomedical research studies that don't stand up to scrutiny?
(THE CONVERSATION) What if I told you that half of the studies published in scientific journals today - the ones upon which news coverage of medical advances is often based - won't hold up under scrutiny? You might say I had gone mad. No one would ever tolerate that kind of waste in a field as important - and expensive, to the tune of roughly US$30 billion in federal spending per year - as biomedical research, right?
Half of biomedical research studies don't stand up to scrutiny - and what we need to do about that
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) kAmW%wt r~}'t#$p%x~}X (92E :7 x E@=5 J@F E92E 92=7 @7 E96 DEF5:6D AF3=:D965 :? D4:6?E:7:4 ;@FC?2=D E@52J – E96 @?6D FA@? H9:49 ?6HD 4@G6C286 @7 >65:42= 25G2?46D :D @7E6? 32D65 – H@?’E 9@=5 FA F?56C D4CFE:?Jn *@F >:89E D2J x 925 8@?6 >25] }@ @?6 H@F=5 6G6C E@=6C2E6 E92E <:?5 @7 H2DE6 :?
Reporting in the Margins of Error
Being wrong and making mistakes is part of the human experience. As part of their core values, scientists and journalists take this one step further and share a commitment to the pursuit of proving themselves wrong in hopes of moving their work forward to benefit society. As editor-in-chief of Spectrum and co-founder of Retraction Watch, Ivan Oransky has kept a close eye on this process.
Question the ‘lab leak’ theory. But don’t call it a conspiracy.
A warning: This article will not tell you whether SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab and set off the Covid-19 pandemic, which has now killed more than 5 million people. I’m not even going to tell you if I think it did. If that was your hope, you may want to move onto something else. But my hope is that you will be willing to explore why truth is almost always elusive — and frequently not because someone is trying to hide it.
The Top Retractions of 2021
Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky The Scientist December 23, 2021 AP Photo/Mark Avino, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Since the start of the pandemic, journals have retracted more than 200 COVID-19–related papers and counting, most of them in 2021. But such papers represent only about 5 percent of the more than 3,000 retractions we’ve indexed this year in the Retraction Watch Database Read Full Article »
Court Tosses $50B Suit by 'Prince of Panspermia'
AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein A neuroscientist once called the “prince of panspermia” has lost a lawsuit against Springer Nature stemming from a 2019 paper of his that a journal retracted. Here’s the summary from United States District Judge John P. Cronan, who heard the original case: Read Full Article » Show comments Hide Comments Related Articles
Another Setback for 'Majorana' Particle
AP Photo/Courtesy Sanford Lab, Matt Kapust You might say that the third time is not the charm for a paper on some elusive fermions. For the third time this year, a leading science journal has raised concerns about a paper on the “Majorana” particle, which, if it exists, would hold promise for building a quantum computer. Read Full Article » Show comments Hide Comments Related Articles
Viewpoint: Media bungling and COVID - It may not be accurate, but the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy
A warning: This article will not tell you whether SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab and set off the Covid-19 pandemic, which has now killed more than 5 million people. I’m not even going to tell you if I think it did. If that was your hope, you may want to move onto something else. But my hope is that you will be willing to explore why truth is almost always elusive — and frequently not because someone is trying to hide it.
Question the ‘lab leak’ theory. But don’t call it a conspiracy.
A warning: This article will not tell you whether SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab and set off the Covid-19 pandemic, which has now killed more than 5 million people. I’m not even going to tell you if I think it did. If that was your hope, you may want to move onto something else. But my hope is that you will be willing to explore why truth is almost always elusive — and frequently not because someone is trying to hide it.
Question the 'Lab Leak' Theory. But Don't Call It a Conspiracy.
Editor's note: Find the latest COVID-19 news and guidance in Medscape's Coronavirus Resource Center. A warning: This article will not tell you whether SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab and set off the Covid-19 pandemic, which has now killed more than 5 million people. I'm not even going to tell you if I think it did. If that was your hope, you may want to move onto something else.
Ivan Oransky, Author at The Wire Science
Question the ‘Lab Leak’ Theory – But Don’t Call It a Conspiracy
Question the ‘Lab Leak’ Theory – But Don’t Call It a Conspiracy - The Wire Science
Image: PIRO4D/pixabay Just as with the nuances about vaccine safety, too many people were too quick to dismiss the lab-leak theory as a conspiracy. But once they took a careful look at some of the evidence, they sometimes had to update stories and statements to acknowledge the possibility, however remote. Some may argue that it’s justifiable to shut down an idea that lacks evidence of certainty – but there is at least some evidence that the approach doesn’t work.
Don't Call the 'Lab Leak' Theory a Conspiracy
(AP Photo/Ng Han Guan, File) A warning: This article will not tell you whether SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab and set off the Covid-19 pandemic, which has now killed more than 5 million people. I’m not even going to tell you if I think it did. If that was your hope, you may want to move onto something else. But my hope is that you will be willing to explore why truth is almost always elusive — and frequently not because someone is trying to hide it.
Question the ‘lab leak’ theory. But don’t call it a conspiracy.
A warning: This article will not tell you whether SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab and set off the Covid-19 pandemic, which has now killed more than 5 million people. I’m not even going to tell you if I think it did. If that was your hope, you may want to move onto something else. But my hope is that you will be willing to explore why truth is almost always elusive — and frequently not because someone is trying to hide it.
A good news story about the New York City subway
Gryffindor, via Wikimedia In 2006, I declared in my bio at The Scientist, where I was deputy editor at the time, that my favorite gadget was the New York City subway. An experience 15 years later has made that even more true. A few Friday mornings ago, I walked briskly down the steps of the 79th St. downtown 1 subway entrance at the northwest corner of 79th and Broadway, just around the corner from our apartment. I had a quiet morning schedule that day, so it was already after 9.
COVID Vaccine Study Drew Scrutiny and Expression of Concern
A study published last week that quickly became another flashpoint for those arguing that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe has earned an expression of concern. The original paper, published in the MDPI title Vaccines, claimed that: The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Ivan
Contact Ivan, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack