I’ve been waiting to get some confirmation on this since yesterday , and now that I have it, I can state that the link to the second Lew paper Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation By Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook of “Sceptical Science” has been disconnected from normal public access at the abstract. The abstract remains, but the paper and supplementary info links on the abstract page have been taken out.
Retraction Watch writes:
=============================================================
That study was published in Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences. But yesterday, that paper — or at least everything but the abstract – disappeared. It turns out this is the second time that’s happened. The paper was first removed on February 6, just days after it was accepted and published, because of complaints from a blogger named Jeff Condon, and since reposted — at least until yesterday.
We asked journal editor Brian Little for some details. Little — whom, we should note, went out of his way to respond to us quickly, despite the impending Easter holiday and a self-imposed “sequester” so that he can finish writing a book — told us:
The article was removed on February 6th because of a complaint about a factual error. We did due diligence, contacted the authors, had it corrected and it was put up again.
Little said he was told yesterday by the Frontiers editorial office that the study had been taken down again, but didn’t know why. There’s a conference call scheduled for just after the Easter break, he said
to find out why it was taken down and to seek a fair and timely resolution.
It doesn’t seem that Frontiers has a policy for taking down articles. When Paul Matthews, of the University of Nottingham, asked the editorial office what had happened the first time the paper was removed, he was told:
Thank you for your message. Please allow me to clarify that the PDF version of the manuscript has been temporarily removed for the purpose of further typesetting. The manuscript is currently in production stage and the full manuscript will be published in the coming weeks. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or concerns.
=============================================================
Hmmm. I doubt seriously they need a conference call for “typesetting”. I wonder if they’ll be able to salvage it from the GIGO macerator this time? Since it was mostly about smearing climate skeptics, and not any actual science, I hope that the people in charge will go with integrity, rather than continue with this ginned up collection of emotional screeds from Lewandowsky and Cook.
Read the full post at Retraction Watch here
See also Steve McIntyre’s dissection of the Cook-Lewandowsky “Lying/deceiving/incompetence” complex
UPDATE: My title and original first paragraph wasn’t fully accurate regarding links. While the paper PDF still exists on the Frontiers in Personality Science website, it has been delinked from the abstract page. Title and first paragraph have been edited for clarity within a few minutes of initial publication. – Anthony
UPDATE2: Geoff Chambers writes in comments:
Barry Woods and I both wrote to the editors independently asking for the article to be retracted. When I didn’t get a reply, I posted the letter on their site, and here
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/lews-talk-costs-libels/
The editorial assistant wrote to me yesterday, saying:
“Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are taking this email very seriously and will temporarily remove the article while we investigate your claims. Please feel free to forward us any further information that will assist us with our investigation”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Its a conspiracy…you and your fellow puppet-masters of the oil-slave army MADE them take it down, If it doesnt go up again CookLew will be running around screaming this fact to anyone who they can trick into not simply ignoring them.
Good riddance to bad rubbish (hopefully).
Barry Woods and I both wrote to the editors independently asking for the article to be retracted. When I didn’t get a reply, I posted the letter on their site, and here
http://geoffchambers.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/lews-talk-costs-libels/
The editorial assistant wrote to me yesterday, saying:
“Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are taking this email very seriously and will temporarily remove the article while we investigate your claims. Please feel free to forward us any further information that will assist us with our investigation”.
@Geoff thank you for your efforts
… and another one bites the dust!
This kind of activity comes under the heading of “Academic Malpractice” and/or “Behaviour likely to bring the University into Disrepute”.
The latter is a sacking offence.
A letter to the (Lewandowsky’s) University Vice Chancellor is in order.
Thank you Geoff and Barry for your efforts. At face value, the editorial team of the journal appear to be acting with integrity, for which they can only be commended.
Pointman
The improvement in cycle time on topical quality control is worthy of a GE six sigma black belt. Hereby duly awarded to this team by a former Motorola practioner. Now, take down the rest of CAGW poor quality science. Which is probably the whole shebang.
Remember that poor quality product should be organically recycled at the factory. Lewandowsky’s stuff can be placed into a traditional Japanese honeypot, composted, and then used to fertilize the next crop of Australian science. Metaphorically speaking…
Kon Dealer………Is this then potentially a lower magnitude version of the Parncutt incident.
What does this say about the quality of the Australian ‘academic establishment’ when they employ people like Lewandowsky?
Do you even know what that journal is? Not to entirely slam them, but I’ve been contacted to be an editor for a ‘topic’ for them. I’ve not looked into it extensively, but it’s not a typical journal. I think it’s a place where cronies could very easily slide things in. Here’s a description from their site:
“…the unique peer-review at Frontiers, with an interactive forum for transparent and real-time discussions between authors and reviewers, is key in certifying the highest quality publications and leading to high citations.
The Frontiers philosophy is that all research that is scientifically sound deserves to be published, removing all bias and subjective editorial criteria, and holding reviewers responsible for their reviews.”
http://www.frontiersin.org/news/Frontiers_Impact_Factors_2011/135
Typesetting error?
The most obvious error was being foolish enough to ever set this craven effort at pathologising scepticism in type at all, especially in the age of the Internet. Sceptics will never forgive and the internet will never forget.
When this started I tried to see the best in Lewandowsky, I give him the benefit of the doubt. So, I wrote to him explaining that he was mistaken about us sceptics.
He didn’t even reply. I can only conclude that he has not the slightest interest in “seeing the other side” or academic balance.
That is about all I want to say about the kind of person he is.
The whole matter should be referred to Peter Gleik for his consideration:)
I’ve had a handful of exchanges with Barry Woods on twitter about this. His admirable position is that he will try to sort it out with the journal, and in that he is a far more forgiving man than I. If I had been so abused I’d have contacted the University’s ethics committee in the first instance and wouldn’t have even bothered with the journal.
The netherworld of social sciences….
Thanks Matt E’
When they say:
“removing all bias and subjective editorial criteria”
clearly thats a defensive statement. Ie, they are uneasily aware …haha, deniers of the fact, that what they DO is exactly what they say it is their policy not to do.
Smarmy, slimy John Cook of SkS has also “doubled down” on his Twitter smears:
Cook’s latest SkS tweet
[emphasis added]
The actual temperature trends to date are NOT meeting the theory’s predictions.
In fact, most of the predictions are very far off so far (not all but most of them, including the most important ones).
Lewandowsky says we must be nuts for even testing out that fact. How twisted can a person be? I mean checking predictions with observations/results. No scientist does that and no field of science condones that.
This is what he is saying.
In The Moon Hoax has Landed, Geoff Chambers discovered that:
Congratulations Anthony for running this highly influential climate blog which cannot be named.
So, who are the real crack pots again?
go on my blog whatsupeveryone.wordpress.com
Re Bill Ellis…Lewand..whatever the stupid pillocks dumbass name is….(about time he Anglicised it if hes pretending to be Australian) is obviously cut from the same cloth as the Soviet “psychiatrists” who “treated” dissidents bin the USSR.
In repy to Bill Illis “The actual temperature trends to date are NOT meeting the theory’s predictions.” – not necessarily so:
http://www.google.com/reader/i/#stream/user%2F10843552267486186964%2Fstate%2Fcom.google%2Fread
I hate it when people assess others by their appearance…but sometimes you cannot help drawing inferences.
[snip so lets not do it – Anthony]
Can you all stop picking on Stephen, You are all soooo! mean. He is my favourite writer on the ABC – The Drum. His articles are rippers with so many good laughs that it is hard to get through them. His assumptions, being the stand points of fools, delivers in bucket loads.
So stop this, it is very hurtful, he may take his bucket and spade and never play in the ABC sand pit again…