Retraction Watch is a searchable database of retractions, expressions of concern, and related publishing events, run by the nonprofit Center for Scientific Integrity. Lucent is a newsletter that screens each new paper it covers, for a retraction and a live DOI, before the paper ever reaches a reader. One is a lookup tool you search when you already have a paper in mind. The other is a pre-screen that runs before you see the paper at all. They are not competing for the same job, and this page names exactly what each one does, without picking a winner.
Retraction Watch is a project of the Center for Scientific Integrity, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit founded in 2014 by Retraction Watch's co-founders. Its core product is the Retraction Watch Database, a searchable record of retractions and related events you can filter by author, journal, subject, country, and reason for retraction. The same underlying retraction records were acquired by Crossref in 2023 and are hosted and rebuilt most working days as the public Crossref Retraction Watch dataset, a file that other tools (including Lucent's own metadata source, indirectly) draw on. Retraction Watch also publishes original reporting on individual retraction cases as they unfold. It is a database and a newsroom, built for someone who already has a DOI, an author, or a journal in mind and wants to search across the full historical record.
Lucent is a newsletter sent every two days. Each issue covers 15 brand-new scholarly papers, rewritten in plain language, five of them free to read. Before a paper is included, Lucent runs one narrow check: it confirms the DOI resolves live and reads Crossref's own metadata for a retraction-related field, then states plainly, next to the paper, what was checked. Anyone can run that same single-DOI check for free, independent of the newsletter, at /check. The full method, including what the check does and does not cover, is written out at how Lucent checks every paper before you read it. Lucent's check is not a search tool. It only ever runs on the specific papers an issue is about to cover, before they are sent.
Go to the Retraction Watch Database when you do not yet have a single DOI in hand and instead want to search: has this journal had many retractions, has this author had a paper retracted, what happened in a specific case you heard about. It is also the better choice when you want the full historical record across all published literature, since Lucent's check only ever runs on the 15 papers in a given issue, not the wider literature. For background on how to search by author, journal, or topic rather than one paper at a time, see how to check if a paper was retracted, which covers the library and database methods, including Retraction Watch's own search, alongside Lucent's single-DOI tool.
If you are reading a paper inside a Lucent issue, the check already happened before you opened the email: there is nothing left to look up. And if you have exactly one DOI right now and want the fastest possible answer, /check gives it in seconds, without needing to know which database to search or how to filter it. That is the tradeoff: Lucent trades the breadth of a searchable database for the convenience of a check that is already done, on a small, fixed set of papers.
These tools are not mutually exclusive, and the honest answer is to use both for what each is built for. Use the Retraction Watch Database for broad searches, an author's back catalog, a journal's history, or a case you want to research in depth. Its own reporting and search filters do that job well, and Lucent does not try to replicate it. Use Lucent for pre-screened coverage of new papers you would not otherwise have found, and use /check when you have a single DOI and want an instant, plain-words answer sourced to Crossref. Lucent's screen has a real limit worth stating plainly: it only covers the 15 papers it publishes per issue. It is not a substitute for a full database search across the wider literature, and it was never built to be one.
The fastest way to see the difference is to run one DOI through Lucent's checker yourself.
The Lancet's 1998 Wakefield MMR paper, retracted in 2010: Crossref's metadata carries the retraction field, and /check reports it in plain words, sourced to Crossref.
Run this DOI at /checkIs Lucent a replacement for Retraction Watch? No. Retraction Watch's database covers retractions and related events across the scholarly literature. Lucent's screen only covers the 15 papers it publishes per issue, not the wider literature.
Does Lucent use the same data as Retraction Watch? Not directly. Lucent reads Crossref's own works API metadata live, for the one DOI in front of it. Retraction Watch built the dataset Crossref separately hosts as the Crossref Retraction Watch dataset. Lucent does not import that file.
Which one should I use to check a specific paper? If you have one DOI and want a fast answer, use Lucent's checker. If you want to search by author, journal, or topic, use the Retraction Watch Database.
Which one tells me about new retractions as they happen? Retraction Watch reports on individual retractions as news and keeps its database updated on an ongoing basis. Lucent only screens the specific new papers it covers before publication, and reports on those alone.
Every two days: 15 brand-new papers in plain language, each checked for a live DOI and a Crossref retraction flag before you ever see them. Five free every issue.
How to check if a paper was retracted · Check a DOI · How Lucent checks every paper · Lucent vs Nature Briefing · Latest issue · Privacy