This will be a top sticky post for a day, new stories will appear below this one
Dana Nuccitelli, the Guardian, Joe Romm, and other overly emotional climate propagandists should heed this message, you’ve been put on notice in a rare statement about the false claims of “threats” being the cause of the retraction.
From the Frontiers in Psychology blog, setting the record straight once and for all, bolding in text is mine:
Retraction of Recursive Fury: A Statement
(Lausanne, Switzerland) – There has been a series of media reports concerning the recent retraction of the paper Recursive Fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation, originally published on 18 March 2013 in Frontiers in Psychology. Until now, our policy has been to handle this matter with discretion out of consideration for all those concerned. But given the extent of the media coverage – largely based on misunderstanding – Frontiers would now like to better clarify the context behind the retraction.
As we published in our retraction statement, a small number of complaints were received during the weeks following publication. Some of those complaints were well argued and cogent and, as a responsible publisher, our policy is to take such issues seriously. Frontiers conducted a careful and objective investigation of these complaints. Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.
As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics. Frontiers informed the authors of the conclusions of our investigation and worked with the authors in good faith, providing them with the opportunity of submitting a new paper for peer review that would address the issues identified and that could be published simultaneously with the retraction notice.
The authors agreed and subsequently proposed a new paper that was substantially similar to the original paper and, crucially, did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers.
We remind the community that the retracted paper does not claim to be about climate science, but about psychology. The actions taken by Frontiers sought to ensure the right balance of respect for the rights of all.
One of Frontiers’ founding principles is that of authors’ rights. We take this opportunity to reassure our editors, authors and supporters that Frontiers will continue to publish – and stand by – valid research. But we also must uphold the rights and privacy of the subjects included in a study or paper.
Frontiers is happy to speak to anyone who wishes to have an objective and informed conversation about this. In such a case, please contact the Editorial Office at editorial.office@frontiersin.org.
Costanza Zucca, Editorial Director
Fred Fenter, Executive Editor
Full statement here
Translation:
To all reading this, I have a personal favor to ask; please go to the media outlets and blogs that are carrying the claims of ‘threats’ being the cause of the retraction, and post a link to the Frontiers in Psychology statement: http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812
Related: A stunning revelation from a UWA Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson over access to Lewandowsky’s poll data
See also: My complaint letter regarding the Lewandowsky affair
Done. Posted at :
http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2014/04/reviewer-journal-wilts-under-climate-of-intimidation/
This is where a reviewer of the Lew paper was already being taken to task for her errors and omissions.
Consider the favor fulfilled.
As I noted over at Steve’s blog, this is going to make the UWA look a lot more deceitful and foolish.
Once again skeptics are vindicated. Lewandowsky and Cook are sleazoids.
Read that Social Science Space article. For the life of me I cannot see what Mosher might have liked about that paper. Its trash, and has been trashed. Science is not something that comes to mind when reading that unless you are predisposed to bias.
Feh. [Any] “retractions” will be under the fold, page 16 in 8 point type with so little context as to be meaningless.
REPLY: Doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. -A
I am so glad for ‘Frontiers in Psychology’ stepping up to their responsibility. It is good to see some integrity. Thank you for passing on this good news.
Like many others here, I used to eagerly await each new issue of Scientific American, but never again. They posted this article by Lewandowsky peer reviewer, Elaine McKewon:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-intimidate-journal-into-retracting-paper-that-finds-they-believe-conspiracy-theories/
I tried to post the following comment:
“Science is reproducible. Research that cannot be replicated is not science, PERIOD. Because Lewandowsky and the University of Western Australia flatly refuse to release the original data for replication, ‘Recursive Fury’ fails to meet the basic minimum requirement of science. The journal retracted it because it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. It’s sad that Scientific American doesn’t understand this. Stephan Lewandowsky and Elaine McKewon are not scientists.”
This was SciAm’s reply:
This submission has been marked as spam.
Louis6439 is a Troll. Please report all commentary by this user…
Meh; too late. Timothy Geigner at Techdirt is using Frontiers’ own disclaimer as “proof” that the “Climate Change Deniers Have Scientific Paper Disappeared”. (Link provided only to document my statement; I do not recommend giving TD the free traffic unless you need to review this. TD used to be great on certain tech issues, but they’re frothing leftwing bugf#@ur momisugly% nuts on pretty much anything else.)
“To all reading this, I have a personal favor to ask; please go to the media outlets and blogs that are carrying the claims of ‘threats’ being the cause of the retraction, and post a link to the Frontiers in Psychology statement: http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812”
I just tried to submit this to Scientific American only to discover that I have been blocked. I hope others will submit if for me. – Thanks
“Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics”
Interesting that none of those identifiable individuals who were basically called screwballs have sued. I suspect this retraction wasn’t as high minded as frontiers pretends.
In any case, they’re standing by the science, which as far as I’m concerned is the most important issue. Then again, since they published it what else can they do? Admit to a mistake? Who does that these days?
Judging from the contents of the statement, Frontiers’ singular objection relates to a failure to protect identity of survey respondents. Essentially, they are taking the high road, as we all know, most of the respondents are phony in the first place. Lew has been convicted of a lesser charge…he should keep his mouth shut and be glad it wasn’t worse.
harsh! they will stand by – pause – “valid research”
“We take this opportunity to reassure our editors, authors and supporters that Frontiers will continue to publish – and stand by – valid research.” – Frontiers
Carl “Bear” Bussjaeger says:
April 4, 2014 at 10:56 am
Meh; too late. Timothy Geigner at Techdirt is using Frontiers’ own disclaimer as “proof” that the “Climate Change Deniers Have Scientific Paper Disappeared”.
Yeah sure. ‘Cuz if skeptics had the power to “disappear” a paper, that’s the one we’d “disappear”? We’d sink hole that one while leaving Mann and Briffa and Marcotte and Trenberth and countless other pieces of pure tripe standing? Seriously? If I could list out the top 100 papers that OUGHT to be retracted for valid scientific reasons, I’m not sure that this one would even make the list.
I am very impressed by the statement and actions by the management of ‘Frontiers in Psychology’.
I will post a link to its statement whenever I see irresponsible claim that ‘we were threatened by skeptics’.
John
Wow. I mean, really, Wow. Talk about a straight shot to the solar plexus. Lew is bent over trying to breathe right around now.
That said, Frontiers set themselves up for this by not “identifying” any ethical or academic problems with the paper in their first statement.
As I surmised at the time, that statement was so carefully parsed as to be meaningless. The lawyers probably worked on it for months. It allowed Lew to claim his academic reputation was intact. That no longer is true. Rather than keeping his mouth shut, they started claiming Frontiers “caved in to threats.” Big mistake. I’m going to find out if it was Lew who actually used that phrase. If he did, he probably violated the agreement between them.
This puts Paul Johnson in a particularly difficult position, which he fully deserves.
Louis Hooffstetter says:
April 4, 2014 at 11:00 am
“To all reading this, I have a personal favor to ask; please go to the media outlets and blogs that are carrying the claims of ‘threats’ being the cause of the retraction, and post a link to the Frontiers in Psychology statement: http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812”
I just tried to submit this to Scientific American only to discover that I have been blocked. I hope others will submit if for me. – Thanks
______________________
Oh Wa
Tah Goo
Sci AM
Louis: I [submitted] the Frontiers [retraction], and so did Eve.
Lets see if they stay.
let me try again.
Louis, I submitted the Frontiers retraction to SciAm, as did Eve. Lets see if they stay.
blah blah blah blah blah blah…..
…and legal factors
I concur with some above commenters. Given that strong statement by the ‘Frontiers in Psychology’ concerning the ‘Recursive’ paper, the VC of UWA has no place to hide now from his irresponsible and irrational rejection of requests for info on both the ‘Moon’ and ‘Recursive’ of Lewandowsky performed while he was on faculty at UWA.
In addition, given that strong statement by the ‘Frontiers in Psychology’ concerning the ‘Recursive’ paper, I also strongly advise the VC of UWA to expeditiously disclose the full text of ethical and academic investigations on Lewandowsky associated with his ‘Moon’ and ‘Recursive’ papers.
John
I tried I tried. The “Threat” Conspiracy is running rabid in Australia.
Also, here at Kos, it is posted by a person who claims to have ‘peer reviewed it”.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/04/1289517/-Overnight-News-Digest-Teabaggers-are-long-in-the-tooth-Edition#
If someone can help post to Kos. I had no luck getting a comment in.
Seems like the usual thing: blame everyone else for the very skanky thing they do every day.
Thanks Les, Eve, and especially Alan Robertson.
I just tried to submit this to Scientific American only to discover that I have been blocked. I hope others will submit if for me. – Thanks
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Welcome to the club. SCIAM is now blocking and removing any comments that they disagree with. They have sunk to the level of a pathetic and irrelevant sci-porn mag. Anybody remember Bob Guccione’s Sci-porn mag “Omni”? No?? There goes SCIAM down the same path to obscurity and bankruptcy.
Wow! I agree with other comments above that this Frontiers statement has got to be a smack in the face for the smug and unprofessional CV of UWA Paul Johnson. I hope that this is brought to the attention of the that institution’s Board of Governors along with Johnson’s obstructionist, arrogant and anti-collegial behaviour.
I also hope that the ethics parameters at UWA and at Bristol University are re-examined and procedures tightened in the wake these revelations about Lewandowski’s turbulent and blatantly unethical, self-congratulatory and agenda-driven work.
So the question now arises as to why Frontiers In Psychology accepted the paper in the first place. The rule that individuals being studied must not be identified should be fairly easy to enforce.