On the coming Lewandowsky et al. vs. Frontiers (maybe, but don't put your bottom bitcoin down on it not happening)
Some, not Stephan Lewandowsky to be sure, have lost sight of the fact that Frontiers and the authors signed an agreement that was negotiated by their respective lawyers and the agreement specified the original statement accompanying the retractions
In the light of a small number of complaints received following publication of the original research article cited above, Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors.”only for the Friday news dump to contain this amended statement on their blog
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.This, if anything is, a clear marker of the pressure that Frontiers is under from those unhappy with the paper being retracted in the first place and there are many of those. Super Lew (as opposed to the guy who scores goal for Borussia Dortmund this year and Bayern next) has just pointed out a few things to concentrate the minds over @ Frontiers
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.
This statement was the result of negotiations between the lawyer for Frontiers and a legal representative of the authors in the U.K., and it formed part of a formal retraction agreement signed by both parties. Although we disagreed with the journal’s decision, we were provided with sufficient information to understand it. Our position on the decision was shared by officers of the Australian Psychological Society and other organizations, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists.who also were not happy with Frontiers. Lewandowsky reports being contacted by several editors and authors who were unhappy with Frontier's actions. He pointed out to those who discussed the matter with him, that he himself continued to work on Frontiers projects, something that perhaps he will not continue to do. This case has a long paper trail.
Eli is not going to get much deeper into these weeds, you can obviously read all about it at Shaping Tomorrow's Future and other places, but perhaps the bunny will leave you with a Roy Spencer moment. Frontiers editors in their new justification for withdrawing the paper write
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.Recursive Fury is a report on the public response on blogs to Lewandowsky, Obenauer and Gignac. Now some, not Eli to be sure, might take this as a statement that Frontiers believes one should not identify those whose public behavior identifies themselves, but what does Eli know? Certainly it will call for re-writing a bunch of papers, no longer allowed are such as
Bunny and Weasel (2015) discuss Tol-Pielke climate impact denial