The Reviewers Tale

WHAN that El Nino with his shoures soote

The droghte of Californie hath perced to the roote,

And bathed every veyne in swich licour,

Of which vertu engendred is the flour;

Whan McIntyre eek with his tendre soul

Inspired hath in every blog and heeth

The bile, and Recursive Fury

Hath in the Wood his halfe cours y-ronne,

And bishps Hills maken melodye,

That slepen al the night with open ye,

(So priketh hem nature in hir corages:

Than longen folk to goon on searches,

And foia seken straunge imaginings,

To ferne halwes, couthe in sondry data;

And specially, from every shires ende

Of Australae, to Sydney they wende,

The holy blisful Reviewer for to seke,

That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seke.

Bifel that, in that sesoun on a day, Conspirate ideation whiskeed  away

In which Elaine McKewon, a reviewer of “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation”. speaks her mind about the paper, the publisher, the retraction and the reaction

Recursive Fury was theoretically strong, methodologically sound, and its analysis and conclusions – which re-examined and reaffirmed the link between conspiracist ideation and the rejection of science – were based on clear evidence. Satisfied that the paper was a solid work of scholarship that could advance our understanding of science denial and improve the effectiveness of science communication, I recommended publication. Two other independent reviewers agreed.

As all the bunnies know the usual suspects raised a rukus and threatened to sue for libel.  The journal called a meeting of their lawyers, the editors, and the reviewers

. . . the lawyer raised concerns about two sentences in the paper that had been the subject of threats of litigation. By the end of the 20-minute conference call, we had all agreed that, if the authors made minor modifications to these sentences, the content would remain intact and the paper could be re-published without fear of successful legal action.

Before the call ended, three academics, including me, argued that scientific journals must not be held to ransom every time someone threatens litigation. In response to our concerns, we were assured by the journal’s representatives that the legal matter would be considered settled once the two sentences had been amended as agreed.

Sadly this did not happen and Frontiers will now have to live with the results.