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
Anthony, good catch — wow that’s wild, looks like Dana N. really trimmed down his comment! I approve of him wanting to avoid the more adolescent and whiny elements he likes to vent, although there should be an indication that the comment has been edited. I didn’t know that users could edit their comments at RetractionWatch?? Maybe he asked the Mod. to do it when he realized he had embarrassed himself (again). Maybe RW edited the comment to conform with their comments policies?? (still, it should be indicated when that has been done)
Lewandowsky has now issued a response on some points in a blog article at Shaping Tomorrow’s World:
Revisiting a Retraction
Revisiting a Retraction
By Stephan Lewandowsky
Professor, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol
Posted on 7 April 2014
============================================================
============================================================
I’m not going to enter any speculation on the accuracy of his narrative or the legal points regarding a document that is not (yet) public. Right now it’s still in a “he said, he said…” impasse without sufficient information in the public realm.
All I can say is that if Lewandowsky’s account is accurate then the journal may well need to scramble to defend its behavior. On the other hand, most of us have learned not to rely upon anything that issues from Lewandowsky, so we will have to see what other information emerges.
Stephan Lewandowsky post here
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf3.html
ends with the words
…
This brings into focus several possibilities for the reconciliation of Frontier’s contradictory statements concerning the retraction:
First, one could generously propose that the phrase “did not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects” is simply a synonym for “defamation risk” and that the updated statement therefore supports the contractually-agreed statement. This is possible but it puts a considerable strain on the meaning of “synonym.”
Second, one could take the most recent statement by Frontiers at face value. This has two uncomfortable implications: It would imply that the true reason for the retraction was withheld from the authors for a year. It would also imply that the journal entered into a contractual agreement about the retraction statement that misrepresented its actual position.
Third, perhaps the journal only thought of this new angle now and in its haste did not consider that it violates their contractually-agreed position.
Or there are other possibilities that we have not been able to identify.
This lengthy post of apologetic character makes things worse, not better. It seems to be a red herring.
Quote Lewandowsky: >>the phrase “did not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects”<<, who himself quoted the Frontiers.
A mere „threat“ is not enough. If every threat to search justice in court would become real, the courts would be completely booked out until kingdom comes.
But it means that means someones right(s) must have been infringed in a manner that might carry the risk of some successful legal action against the Frontiers. That's the legal reason. Bad enough. But if there is only a risk, how large is that risk, what are the chances of getting away scot free in court or, lets say, with a black eye? The Frontiers must have sought good legal advice to come to a conclusion. The conclusion, obviously, was that the infringements are so severe, that the chances of losing in court are larger than those of winning.
A. There was an infringement of the rights of others. Responsibility for that is with Lewandowsky et al . There are the legal reasons
B. The control mechanism in form of peer reviewing were circumvented or did not work. There are some academic reasons
C. In consequence, that means a considerable risk for the publishers of losing if it goes to court. Frontiers was negligent, to say the least.
Result: bad science plus bad peer review plus editorial incompetence means heavy trouble. Or Frontiers had been the obedient, willing servant of a man who had an axe to grind with somebody. It took some time to realize that…
Consequence: opuscule retracted and Lewandowsky now obfuscating and bumfuzzling with all his waning might but still with considerable trouble ahead. It serves him right.
no – probably not Dana revising it.. one or 2 comments have been adjusted by the blog owners……
(without any notification) , toned down sensibly?-
my – oh that’s enough, is that you Rob Painting of sceptical science,
turned into “Rob’s bio from Skeptical Science”
that sort of moderation is a little unwise (despite good intentions, I feel) , as one person has pointed out
“tsunami of deceit”
Alan, I am so stealing that!