PrePubMed was the first open source index of preprints, has been accurately indexing preprints for over two years, and is still the only place to get detailed preprint statistics. The data has served as a resource for various articles and analyses:
Since reading a blog post by Brian Wansink, my colleagues and I have tirelessly looked through Wansink's papers for errors, contacted journal editors, and corresponded with journalists. This scandal has cast a shadow over an entire field, and is discussed by academics around the world. Below are some of my favorite pieces on the topic. If you are interested in more links, including blog posts by my colleagues and me, you can check here. Retraction Watch is also accumulating quite the collection of Wansink posts (he's listed as number 2 on their Top 10 Retractions of 2017). Two uber posts on this scandal are here and here.
I called some people idiots on Twitter and both Jon Tennant and Brian Nosek wrote blog posts in response. For the record, I disagree vehemently with both of these posts. First, "open science" doesn't have an image or inclusivity problem because there is no such thing as "open science". There is science, and then there is non-science, and science just happens to be so rare that we had to identify it with a qualifier. I side 100% with Chris Chambers here. Just as dating conservatives isn't going to end racism, being nice to pseudoscientists isn't going to make them actual scientists. Thinking otherwise is just misguided optimism.
