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
also… Has anyone else noticed that even if Lews ‘study’ had been 100% by the book and above board on all counts it would still have been an utterly pointless and inane contribution to the ‘science’ of psychology and an utterly ridiculous and unjustifiable waste of taxpayer dollars?
Jim Bo says: April 4, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Re wiki update. Done, but you better go there quick, it may not last long!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Lewandowsky
Very spookily, the Kaptcha security verification word, was ‘ragemaze’ 0:
The information presented and questions raised in this thread are a goldmine of insights into humanity. If the leadership at the institutions involved in this affair would only come here, to this thread and then harness the honesty and courage to confront what they find, then they have a chance to overcome that which has taken them so far from the right course of action.
We will see.
Frontiers in Psychology has been the first to stand up.
Lew Skannen says:
April 5, 2014 at 5:11 am
Lew, when I did statistics 101 back in the ’70s I was warned that self-selecting surveys were a complete waste of time and had no scientific value at all. It was drummed into us that they had to be randomised and that even the selection procedure on how the randomisation was arrived at was most important. Finally, I don’t think it says much about the paper that it was ‘pal’-reviewed by a PhD student – who still thinks her idol was bullied into retraction!
Late in the Fall of 2008 (i.e., just before the election), SciAm published an article reporting on a comparison of positive and negative news coverage of Obama and McCain. The bottom line: it found coverage of McCain actually more positive than that of Obama!
It wasn’t until near the end of the piece that the author revealed WHEN the data had been taken for: the previous Summer and Spring, in other words during the primary season. The significance of this is that during much of that time, Hillary Clinton was lauded as the “inevitable choice” versus Barack Obama, and John McCain was widely regarded as the most moderate Republican. So what we being compared was actually Obama coverage vs. Hillary coverage, and McCain coverage vs. other Republicans!
SciAm allowed the article to be run in the full knowledge that it would APPEAR to be addressing the very timely issue of how the press covered Obama vs. how it covered McCain during the run-up to the Presidential election, and in fact headlined it as such. Only a careful reader would note that it was no such thing. I believe there is a word for such behavior, and it is “mendacity”, which is loosely a synonym for “lying”.
That’s when I cancelled my subscription of 30-some years.
Ray Van Dune says:
April 5, 2014 at 6:35 am
________________________
You speak of the mendacity of Scientific American and you are wholly correct, but they are only one publication among many who have so compromised their integrity that nothing which they publish can be trusted. You have only scratched the surface of what we have witnessed over the course of the CAGW controversy. The entire body of advocacy for societal change because of climate hazard is rife with meretricious dishonesty. None of the warmists visible to the public amount to anything at all on their own, but taken in concert, have struck against mankind like a tsunami of deceit.
andywest2012 says: April 5, 2014 at 5:43 am
Having been previously subjected to (on a non-climate change subject) a standard kangaroo court that postures as Wikipedia “oversight” and barred from further contribution on that subject (in which I’m rather well versed), I’ve given up on Wikipedia as a credible source for anything with political implications/ramifications. The leftist praetorian guard owns the joint…period.
For entertainment purposes, I’ll follow that article evolution with some amused interest.
thingadonta says: April 4, 2014 at 7:28 pm
“I’ve been reading Hayden Washington’s and John Cook’s ‘Climate Change Denial-Head in the sand’ book.”
Why?
Non Nomen says:
“The Lewtanic paper was peer reviewed. The reviewing peers ought to have noticed that it was not up to the standards of ethics in that field of science. Did they really fail to notice it?”
It should be noted that Elaine McKewon, who wrote the article claiming that the paper was withdrawn due legal threats (which Frontiers has denied was the case), was one of the peer reviewers. The fact that she has not withdrawn her claims about legal threats after Frontiers wrote that there were no legal threats speaks a great deal about her standards of ethics.
news flash, prominent ally of Lewandowsky/Cook decides to trash the journal “Frontiers” —
Dana N. has posted a couple of very ‘interesting’ remarks, angry and bitter, claiming personal knowledge that the Lewandowsky authors had agreed to all revisions sought by Frontiers. Now Dana is exploring the “let’s trash the journal” approach to defending Lewandowsky et al.
Dana N. on Lewandowsky et al.
[emphasis added]
Anthony and others may want to see Dana N’s new defense of Lewandowsky & co. over at RetractionWatch.com
My comment here linking the thread over there is in moderation, so I’m just noting that Dana has now taken to angry attacks on the journal over their latest statement. Funny times…..
Now for Lewandowsky’s latest (cross-posted at Bishop Hill if I may)
Wow! Add this to the list of deceptive, dishonest, and/or delusional utterances by Stephan Lewandowsky. Yesterday he posted a faux ‘summary’ of what he claims are the mainstream media coverages of his retracted paper. One problem is that although he purports to summarize ‘mainstream’ …. ‘media’ …. coverage, almost all of the quotes on his list are from his closest allies in Blogworld. Only 2-3 out of the 10 items could plausibly be described as coming from the mainstream news media (depends on whether or not one considers Salon.com or an activist’s blog article at The Guardian as mainstream news media).
Sure, most of us are fans of what (we regard) as good blogs, and want our favored blogs to be taken seriously, but we don’t pretend that they are identical to the “mainstream news media.”
Also, he utterly avoids confronting the new statement from Frontiers; instead he quotes a stream of mostly fringe commentary that came out well BEFORE the new statement from Frontiers. So Lewandowsky is doubly deceptive here: little of his material is ‘mainstream’ media and none of it (so far) comes after or with any cognizance of the new position statement from Frontiers.
Lewandowsky on his ‘mainstream’ media support
title: “Recursive Fury: A Summary of Media Coverage”
Lewandowsky: “This post highlights some of the mainstream coverage”
Lewandowsky then includes blog quotes from such renowned mainstream news media eminences as PZ Myers, Graham Readfearn, Scholars and Rogues, “Sou” at “HotWhopper”…. also Dana N’s blog at The Guardian, the blog of activists at the “Union of Concerned Scientists” etc. etc.
So while Michael Mann sues everyone in sight over the merest slight, real or perceived, it is considered “intimidation” when the shoe is on the other foot. Yet nobody has actually sued. Compare/contrast…
Jim Bo says: April 5, 2014 at 8:21 am
I’ve had some edits unreasonably zapped at wiki too in the past, though gave up on the issue early as I could see it was futile to go to an editing war I wouldn’t win. I won’t pursue it this time either I guess, but I thought that at least I’d get the first pass of factual correctness from the journal itself in there, before the inevitable edit fudges start and erode this away. Need at least a token challenge to those who’d rather hide or disguise the facts!
Maybe it’s because I am just a Simple Redneck, but the only two points l see are: there were no threats and the paper didn’t protect the identity of the participants. Left unsaid is that the underlying science is acceptable to them. It is my understanding that the science was dog poo.
So, while this statement was better than nothing, a comment on the ethics and quality of the methodology would have made the statement better by a factor of ten.
I guess that I see the glass half empty,
Regards
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
Below I’ve linked portions of Brandon Schollenberger’s article and led by Anthony’s article above about the journal Frontiers in Psychology published retraction statement.
My subject line is similar to Brandon’s; but reflects some of my concerns instead. Elaine McKewon apparently has admitted that she was a ‘Peer Reviewer’.
Which brings up the question, “What is an independent ‘Peer Reviewer’?”.
‘Elaine McKewon’ has literally announced and identified herself as definitively biased; not only biased, but willing to declare and publish fabrications defending her less than independent review and the review’s object, Lewandowsky’s “Recursive Fury”.
There are now additional questions; both regarding ‘peer review’ and Elaine McKewon’s future as a peer reviewer.
‘Frontiers in Psychology’ should be very concerned about their ‘peer review’ process, how they choose ‘peer reviewers’ and how they intend to prevent similar debacles occurring because a ‘peer reviewer’ is biased. All journals should learn from ‘Frontiers in Psychology’s’ lessons learned and perhaps share information publicly regarding biased reviewers. Many employers routinely utilize knowledge gained online when selecting employees; perhaps it is time that journal’s desiring truly honest fair and even handed reviews when considering a paper for publication followed suit in this respect.
Previously, the world had climategate emails for proof of ‘peer review’ gone bad now commonly referred to as ‘pal review’. Elaine McKewon’s public declaration of her avowed devotion toward anything Lewandowsky says, does or writes brings ‘pal review’ into further disrepute. Elaine McKewon may be termed a ‘pal’ of Lewandowsky but that fails to describe the extent she supports his paper publicly.
Elaine’s university should carefully review any conclusions she reaches in her research especially as she espouses a prior belief in ‘climate consensus’ over legitimate scientific debate. One could get curious about which ‘climate consensus’ she believes in, but that is likely a deep abyss without knowledge or logic. Instead one should inquire how said university teaches open science?
Given the size of many climate researcher egos, terming such prejudiced reviews as ‘devotion or devotee review’ wouldn’t be apt for many reviewers. Perhaps ‘incestuous review’ would be the best description as Lewandowsky’s ‘pals’ are definitely in bed with his advocacy motives.
Anthony and Brandon’s articles along with Elaine McKewon’s acknowledged and very public bias clearly bring into perspective just how seriously compromised climate science and the climate science ‘Peer Review’ process is.
All prior reviews under climate science’s peer review process must be viewed as suspect until cleanly reviewed and independently replicated.
All data, code, methods and information needed for independent replication should be posted online.
Previously ‘reviewed’ research papers that yet have not published complete replication information should be given timelines by the publishing journals for getting the necessary information online or face retraction.
Following are portions of Brandon’s well correlated article.
“We remind the community that the retracted paper does not claim to be about climate science, but about psychology.”
Odd that they would need to remind anyone about this. Why the need to remind? Perhaps people think the Koch brothers are behind the retraction.
Posted this a little while ago at retractionwatch.com
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats
John
pokerguy says:
April 4, 2014 at 11:01 am
Interesting that none of those identifiable individuals who were basically called screwballs have sued.
==============
Proving that they are not screwballs.
Lewandowsky authors had agreed to all revisions sought by Frontiers.
=============
Judge, give me just one more chance and I promise I’ll go straight. I promise I will.
To me, this quote is even bigger. They proposed a new paper that didn’t cut the mustard either. Lewserdowsky.
Frontiers disgraced itself by publishing such a trashy piece of work, and, it would seem, by their choice of reviewers ahead of publication.
May I humbly suggest that those who have the Frontiers in Psychology contact details make every effort to contact them and congratulate them on their ‘taken a responsible action’ against papers which lay ‘unfounded’ claims and judgments. They need to be applauded for the action they have taken. They made a mistake and are at least making moves to rectify it. More than I can say about some publications. To me this shows the tide is turning!!! Thanks.
dbstealey: gotta feel for you mate, thought you succinct and to the point without any name calling or abuse. The way I see it, you’ll be vindicated when this scrag of a rag goes bankrupt. Todays consumer demands better than this and if this organisation cannot deliver factual or handle factual information, rest assured the owners will lose their house and everything they have put up for collateral. The shareholders and other stakeholders should be quite active in forcing the board to rethink its approval of the strategies put forward by the management, only time will tell!
I think we are missing the most salient point to com out of this sorry saga. It is even more important now that well qualified person in the field be given full access to all data and follow up investigations for the purposes of submitting their own academic paper or papers as on the face of it there is ample material to form a basis for a series of papers. One to do with unethical procedures. the second to do with the Psychological projection and bias of the “researcher”, a third on the of the use of a Psychological paper to create group think, a fourth on the failure of the University heads to follow their own ethical and moral path in this “How a University joined the forces of academic corruption and bias”. Ample material on show now, just needs the pressure of researchers to access the inner workings, and that is legitimate academic work.