About these ads

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Remember the $32 opaque retraction notice? Molecular Biology and Evolution removes paywall

with 3 comments

On Tuesday, we reported on the case of a retraction notice in Molecular Biology and Evolution, an Oxford University Press (OUP) journal, that had three problems:

  • it provided no information, saying simply that “This article has been permanently retracted from publication by the authors.”
  • the last 8 words of the 11-word notice were behind a $32 paywall
  • the paper itself had been removed from the journal’s site entirely, instead of simply being marked as retracted.

At the time, we noted that we had tried to reach OUP to find out why the retraction had been handled this way. Today, we heard back from Cathy Kennedy, the OUP publisher responsible for the journal. She tells Retraction Watch that one of the issues — the paywall — has already been fixed, and that the other two are being worked on:

Unfortunately, our internal process for handling a retraction request was not followed in this case and this paper was retracted without a full review of the circumstances by OUP. We are working with the editor of the journal to fully understand the circumstances of the requested retraction and to reinstate the paper with an updated retraction notice or to simply reinstate the paper, should that be appropriate.‬‪We will let you know the outcome once our investigation is complete. We have also removed the paywall from the retraction notice which should not have been in place.‬‪

We look forward to hearing the outcome of the investigation, of course, and appreciate OUP’s transparency in explaining what happened. We’re also glad to hear that this is not standard operating procedure — SOP — at OUP.

About these ads

Written by ivanoransky

September 2, 2011 at 9:40 am

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Hello,

    Thank you for high-lighting the problem of retractions behind paywalls. I have written to Science in the past to complain about their practice, without reply, and without a change of policy as shown by this link from the latest issue:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6047/1220.1.full

    John Girdlestone

    September 3, 2011 at 4:38 am

  2. I have sent an FoI request to OUP asking for details of their pricing policy (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pricing_policy_and_revenues_for/new ) and I have quoted the RW post:

    Peter Murray-Rust

    September 4, 2011 at 7:11 am


We welcome comments. Please read our comments policy at http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/the-retraction-watch-faq/ and leave your comment below.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,327 other followers

%d bloggers like this: