Additional thoughts on Bible-flu and the retraction

By tsmith on August 13, 2010.

PZ has some additional thoughts on the Bibleflugate retraction up at Pharyngula. Choice quote:

This is a serious concern, to my mind. Scientists are expected to be open and communicative about their work, explaining all the details about how we achieve our results. Yet then we hand that work over to a publisher (usually a for-profit organization), where it is subjected to an arcane process cloaked in mystery that they call peer review. And every once in a while, some strange fluke exposes the inherently arbitrary and chaotic nature of that process, everyone asks "how the hell did that get published?", and some guy in a business suit steps out to unconvincingly tell us "oops" and reassure us that all is well in the machineries of their journal.

I don't think it's enough. If a publisher wants to manage this profitable business of publishing science journals, there ought to be an expectation of transparency -- a fuller explanation of how submissions are handled, and when mistakes are made, a more thorough explanation of exactly how it happened. Without an open explanation of how such mistakes occur, I can't have any confidence that efforts will be made to correct the process that led to them.

He also notes the lead author responded to a request for comments, basically saying he was surprised at the response and was only meant to be "thought-provoking."

More like this

Another publisher stonewalls on how he screwed up

That ridiculous article on Biblical diagnosis has been officially retracted, and the editor left a comment at Aetiology: As Editor-in-Chief of Virology Journal I wish to apologize for the publication of the article entitled ''Influenza or not influenza: Analysis of a case of high fever that…

Open Access

Over the last couple of days, quite a number of articles have been posted here at Scienceblogs commenting on the for-profit academic publishing community's most recent efforts to fight mandatory open access to government science. The industry group representing the major publishers of academic…

Peer Reviews Faked In Tiny Percentage of A Small Percentage of Journals, Heads Will Roll.

The academic world and its detractors are all a-tizzy about this recent news reported here: Springer, a major science and medical publisher, recently announced the retraction of 64 articles from 10 of its journals. The articles were retracted after editors found the authors had faked the peer-…

Astroturfing To Protect Their Hidden Government Subsidies

It's always a good day when I can blog about profit hungry companies trying to protect their profit margins or about some group using sleazy tactics to try to get special interest legislation passed or blocked. Today is a very good day - I get to do both at the same time. That's right, folks, the…

What's next, a study of Princess Fiona in the tallest tower as an example of narcolepsy?

I have the very first entry in my list of journals that I absolutely will NOT even consider sending a manuscript to. I wouldn't want the taint of actually being published from Virology Journal seeing as how they will apparently print anything. Perhaps a thorough scan of past journal article titles will find some creationist virology treatises.

The fact that the article is apparently still accessible means the wellhead, so to speak, is still spewing filth and sullying the scientific waters around it.

Next weeks article in Climatology Today is "Noah, Sole Account Of Global Warming In Pre-Biblical Times."

Hi Kitty cat,

Don't you think it is more important to get married for girls in your age?

Wind

@1 What's next, a study of Princess Fiona in the tallest tower as an example of narcolepsy?

LOL x}

Advertisment

Donate

ScienceBlogs is where scientists communicate directly with the public. We are part of Science 2.0, a science education nonprofit operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Please make a tax-deductible donation if you value independent science communication, collaboration, participation, and open access.

You can also shop using Amazon Smile and though you pay nothing more we get a tiny something.

Science 2.0

Science Codex

More by this author

Movin'...

October 18, 2017

As several others have already noted, after almost 12 years, Scienceblogs is shutting down at month's end. Though I've done most of my writing elsewhere over the last few years, I'd certainly like to keep the archives of this blog up somewhere, and maintain it as a place to post random musings that…

The high cost of academic reimbursement

September 29, 2017

Spring, 2004. I was in the second year of my post-doc, with kids ages 4 and 2. Because I was no longer a student, the full brunt of my student loan payments had hit me, which were collectively almost double the cost of my mortgage. To put it generously, money was tight. Truthfully, we were broke as…

Vaccine advocacy 101

July 26, 2017

I recently finished a 2-year stint as an American Society for Microbiology Distinguished Lecturer. It's an excellent program--ASM pays all travel expenses for lecturers, who speak at ASM Branch meetings throughout the country. I was able to attend Branch meetings from California and Washington in…

Is there such a thing as an "evolution-proof" drug? (part the third)

May 31, 2017

A claim that scientists need to quit making: I've written about these types of claims before. The first one--a claim that antimicrobial peptides were essentially "resistance proof," was proven to be embarrassingly wrong in a laboratory test. Resistance not only evolved, but it evolved…

HIV's "Patient Zero" was exonerated long ago

October 27, 2016

The news over the past 24 hours has exclaimed over and over: HIV's Patient Zero Exonerated How scientists proved the wrong man was blamed for bringing HIV to the U.S. Researchers Clear "Patient Zero" from AIDS Origin Story H.I.V. Arrived in the U.S. Long Before ‘Patient Zero’ Gaetan Dugas: "patient…