Readers may recall some ethics objections I raised in my complaint letter to UWA and Psychological Science, and also sent to Frontiers. It seems Frontiers agrees.
This statement was posted on their website today:
===========================================================
Rights of Human Subjects in Scientific Papers
The retracted Recursive Fury paper has created quite a blogger and twitter storm. A sensational storm indeed, with hints to conspiracy theories, claims of legal threats and perceived contradictions. It has been fury – one of the strongest human emotions – that has (perhaps understandably at first sight) guided the discussion around this retraction. Not surprisingly though, the truth is not as sensational and much simpler.
The studied subjects were explicitly identified in the paper without their consent. It is well acknowledged and accepted that in order to protect a subject’s rights and avoid a potentially defamatory outcome, one must obtain the subject’s consent if they can be identified in a scientific paper. The mistake was detected after publication, and the authors and Frontiers worked hard together for several months to try to find a solution. In the end, those efforts were not successful. The identity of the subjects could not be protected and the paper had to be retracted. Frontiers then worked closely with the authors on a mutually agreed and measured retraction statement to avoid the retraction itself being misused. From the storm this has created, it would seem we did not succeed.
For Frontiers, publishing the identities of human subjects without consent cannot be justified in a scientific paper. Some have argued that the subjects and their statements were in the public domain and hence it was acceptable to identify them in a scientific paper, but accepting this will set a dangerous precedent. With so much information of each of us in the public domain, think of a situation where scientists use, for example, machine learning to cluster your public statements and attribute to you personality characteristics, and then name you on the cluster and publish it as a scientific fact in a reputable journal. While the subjects and their statements were public, they did not give their consent to a public psychological diagnosis in a scientific study. Science cannot be abused to specifically label and point out individuals in the public domain.
It is most unfortunate that this particular incident was around climate change, because climate change is a very serious threat for human civilization. But the importance of the subject matter does not justify abandoning our principles.
Frontiers’ core mission is to improve peer review. One principle that we follow is that scientific publishing should sit in the hands of scientists. Frontiers implements this principle by supporting scientists to operate the peer-review process from the beginning to the end. Frontiers remains faithful to this mission, despite the risks that comes with it. We will stay the course because we fundamentally believe that authors should bear the full responsibility of submitting papers with the highest standards and that scientists should bear the full responsibility of deciding what science is published. After publication, the community is engaged and a post-publication review naturally follows. Post-publication review is facilitated by the Frontiers’ commenting and social networking platforms. This process may reveal fundamental errors or issues that go against principles of scholarly publishing. Like all other journals, Frontiers seriously investigates any well-founded complaints or allegations, and retraction only happens in cases of absolute necessity and only after extensive analysis. For the paper in question, the issue was clear, the analysis was exhaustive, all efforts were made to work with the authors to find a solution and we even worked on the retraction statement with the authors. But there was no moral dilemma from the start – we do not support scientific publications where human subjects can be identified without their consent.
Editor-in-Chief, Frontiers
Source:
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830
This is another of their policies they may wish to address:
“Frontiers then worked closely with the authors on a mutually agreed and measured retraction statement to avoid the retraction itself being misused.”
Translated:
“Frontiers, in an effort to curry favor with the psychotics to whom we toady, presented a false narrative (spin) to shield them from any consequences after it became apparent that our own reputation was being defined our participation in a political smear campaign. When we found that it was impossible to evade our own responsibility, Frontiers was confronted with a salvage operation and now strives to regain some veneer of respectability – without offending anybody but the damn deniers. Are we still bff, lewie?”
was gleick the ethics consultant?
That was a cleverly written statement that focussed on the reason for retraction as being because of the identification of the participants and mentioned nothing about the quality of the science in the paper.
On the “science”, does anyone really believe that a person’s true behavioural characteristics can be assessed from a paragraph or two in a public forum where people are known to take on alternative personalities as a kind of game to provoke reaction?
I expect Lew and friends believe it.
Only somewhat tangent, we are talking about Lew after all, put this into your search engine:
“can you spot a psychopath criminal”. There is a Psychopathy Checklist for assessing documents, although it cautions against using interviews since psychopaths are superb liars.
Glib, superficially charming, callous, without empathy, grandiose ego, impulsive, etc.
“But the importance of the subject matter does not justify abandoning our principles.”
===============
OK, but can you let us know, when it is justified ?
After all, it is only principles.
[they] will hang you with your principles stick to the fact but make fun of [their] [ridiculous] [claim] and you will win
Sadly, Frontiers statement [does] little to address the real issues. I appreciate their taking a stand, however, I just don’t see their statements as completely truthful. The Journal says the paper’s identification of subjects is wrong and that when this came up as a result of social media pressure post publication they addressed it. Yet others here have noted the violation of both the UWA and the Journal’s pretty clear existing rules.
This serious violation – a violation serious enough to cause a retraction – existed from the start. We know there were serious issues with the peer review process during and post-publication, serious enough that a qualified reviewer withdrew and asked his name be removed.
The investigation should be why the peer reviewer and the Editorial process failed to identify this core issue and violation. To that, Frontiers has said nothing.
And to me, that failure to say anything … seems to say everything.
What I would really like to see is true transparency from the Journal – and a REAL, independent review of the papers merits and failures.
Oh, I know that newspapers have heaps of lawyers backing up any legal suits. Or they retract a previously published article or news item. I think this magazine should have said something to explain why they retracted it? But universities tend to circle the wagons anyway, and academics are encouraged to publish, even if what they publish is rubbish.
Does any of this sound vaguely familiar?
Excerpts from Wikipedia
During the leadership of General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, psychiatry was used as a tool to eliminate political opponents (“dissidents”) who openly expressed beliefs that contradicted official dogma. The term “philosophical intoxication” was widely used to diagnose mental disorders in cases where people disagreed with leaders….
– – –
…the system of diagnosing mental illness, developed by academician Andrei Snezhnevsky, created the very preconditions under which non-standard beliefs could easily be transformed into a criminal case, and it, in its turn, into a psychiatric diagnosis.
– – –
According to the Global Initiative on Psychiatry chief executive Robert van Voren, the political abuse of psychiatry in the USSR arose from the conception that people who opposed the Soviet regime were mentally sick since there was no other logical rationale why one would oppose the sociopolitical system considered the best in the world [try substituting the hypothesis of global warming here instead].
Should we code “philosophical intoxication” as PI? And add that to Lew’s list of cute disorder codes?
I’m going to defend them. They are a business. They’ve probably been publishing politicized crap with methodologies similar to Lew’s for years because their readership loves that kind of stuff. You gotta keep the customer satisfied, etc. But when those named pointed out to them the ethical violations they saw the light, made the right decision and held fast, even though Lew was no doubt threatening them with a lawsuit, which is ironic when you think about it because that’s what he accused those he defamed of doing. Lew didn’t hire a lawyer to play pattycake with Frontiers.
They ended up doing the right thing and they should be congratulated for it.
kcom, of course genocide has never happened before. LOL. Now it is to be rude and libelous against your objectors to validate what? Defending ones ideology and beliefs that threaten your power and credibility over the masses.
I’m with timg56. To us lay folk, this unfolding of the climate change story has really shown the belly of the beast. It’s shocking! To those of us who’ve always questioned the value we get from much of the research done today, this whole story adds quite a bit of fuel to the fire. Sad really.
you are the best freedom has to offer keep it up. they can’t beet your facts so the will try to shut you up
good night everyone .love you all and keep up the fight for the truth..
james says:
April 11, 2014 at 7:07 pm
[they] will hang you with your principles stick to the fact but make fun of [their] [ridiculous] [claim] and you will win
=============
Who [..] is trying to change the original comment ?
You’ve got your work cut out for you, attempting to read the mind of “James” ?
@timg56 says:
April 11, 2014 at 8:52 am
“I am still having trouble understanding how either the Fury or Moon Hoax paper could possibly be considered as being of sufficient scientific quality to deserve publication in the first place, regardless of any ethical issues.
Exactly.Just look at the titles!
NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:
An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in
response to research on conspiracist ideation
They then use a muppett to make sure,quote”reviews significantly redefine the assignments for both authors and editors in order to guarantee the most accurate, efficient and impartial reviews in academic publishing”
It is a mistake to give these clowns credit for any type of editorial integrity,they deserve nothing but derision and contempt along with the rest of the ‘science communicators’
“It is most unfortunate that this particular incident was around climate change, because climate change is a very serious threat for human civilization. But the importance of the subject matter does not justify abandoning our principles.”
=======================================================================
So the ends don’t justify the means. Mostly. Yet. We think.
What a useful ladder they have found themselves.
Instead of tackling the REAL issues with this piece of “work”, they used the technicality ladder to climb down.
Sad but oh, so predictable.
I think after reading most posts, the article and some of previous Frontier Magazine’s publications. I have a conclusion, they need to look at one “fix” still occasionally used within their profession.
Frontier needs to step forward and give themselves a front(ier)al lobotomy.
The whole episode has become regrettable to everyone concerned, judging from the repeated public excuses, also to Frontier in Psychology’s Editor-in-Chief Henry Markram. Perhaps Markram’s vague creed to climate change suffices to avoid the fate of Dr Richard Tol, Patrick Moore and others.
On the other hand, this cloud has a silver lining. At least Markram is now aware of the traps anthropogenic apocalypse forecasters are setting to editors. Who knows maybe even the editors of frontiers in theology, astronomy, homeopathy, telepathy etc became wary.
trust Laden to be in the mix:
9 April: ScienceBlogs: Greg Laden: Stephan Lewandowsky AMA on Reddit
Posted by Greg Laden on April 9, 2014
(STRANGE PHOTO OF LEWANDOWSKY COVERED IN TEXT: I DON’T USUALLY SEND PEOPLE TO REDDIT….BUT WHEN I DO IT IS FOR AN AMA WITH STEPHAN LEWANDOWSKY)
Stephan is a cognitive scientist who has done a lot of important work related to climate change. He’s doing a reddit “Ask Me Anything” on Monday, April 14th from 7:30AM EST onwards. Which, conveniently for him, is 7:30PM in Australia, if I have my time zones right.
There are two topics he mentioned to me that he’d like to address, which I will describe to you by citing blog posts:
The climate change uncertainty monster – more uncertainty means more urgency to tackle global warming
-and-
In Who’s Hands is the Future?
But this is an AMA so I suppose you can ask him anything.
(3 COMMENTS)
sou:
Thanks for the heads up, Greg. (I hope the reddit moderators have been briefed.
bill:
Brave man!
The moderators will indeed have one hell of a job; but doubtlessly lots of material for the next incarnation of Recursive Fury will be generated!…
marco:
Isn’t Lewandowsky in the UK at the moment?
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/04/09/stephan-lewandowsky-ama-on-reddit/
twitter: greg laden
Tell #FrontiersInPsychology: stand up for academic freedom. Reinstate your paper on #climate change denial! http://d.shpg.org/38211954t
Michael Bazemore Jr@MGBazemoreJr OK. Is the paper posted anywhere else online?
https://twitter.com/gregladen/statuses/454965895614308353
twitter link goes to:
act.forecastthefacts: Defend Academic Freedom from Climate Change Deniers
The following petition will be delivered to Axel Cleeremans, field chief editor of Frontiers in Psychology:
Stand for academic freedom — reinstate “Recursive Fury,” your 2013 research on climate change deniers.
Climate change deniers have successfully censored peer-reviewed academic research — but now we have an opportunity to fight back for free speech…
If allowed to stand, the journal’s decision could create a slippery slope, yielding increasing attempts to suppress research on climate change — but now pressure is mounting on Frontiers to reverse course and re-publish the paper. This past week, three university professors resigned from editorial positions at Frontiers in protest of the decision, which one said “puts large sections of science at risk.” A strong show of public support now will help empower Frontiers to stand up to the climate change deniers and ensure the rights of the paper’s authors are upheld.
Stand up for academic freedom — sign the petition calling on Frontiers to reinstate the censored paper.
(CLAIMS 170 HAVE SIGNED UP – GOAL IS 1,500)
Had this “standard of consent” been universally applied to climate reports over the years, lots of personal pain and humiliation could have been avoided. Imagine the ridicule those “sweltering penguins” must has suffered at the hands of their shivering fellows only a few years back. Then consider the laughing stock that was made of “Lonesome Polar Bear” when he became the climate change poster boy while riding a stray chunk of Arctic ice:
“Mr.Bear, we’d like your consent to present you as an example of climate-warming-induced starvation and extinction.”
“What? Look at me! I weigh 1,900 pounds and haven’t seen my own feet in a decade, not to mention ‘the family jewels’!”
CH
Did you know that Australia has just got new data privacy laws this March?
http://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-resources/privacy-fact-sheets/other/privacy-fact-sheet-17-australian-privacy-principles
If subjects can become objects, perhaps subjectivism can become objectivism.