Updates: Journal of Climate adds info about withdrawn hot temps paper, chemistry journal corrects retraction notice
In June, we wrote about the withdrawal of a paper claiming that temperatures in the last 60 years were warmest in the last 1,000 years. At the time, we reported, following posts by others, that the authors had been made aware of errors in their work and were withdrawing it to correct their calculations.
For several months, the page housing the Journal of Climate study read:
The requested article is not currently available on this site.
Due to errors discovered in this paper during the publication process, it was withdrawn by the authors prior to being published in final form.
In June, one of the authors, David Karoly, told us and others he expected to resubmit the paper to the journal, and that’s what the University of Melbourne also reports on top of the original press release about the paper (also noted by Skiphil):
Scientific study resubmitted.
An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Ailie Gallant, Steven Phipps and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.
The manuscript has been re-submitted to the Journal of Climate and is being reviewed again.
Our second update is on a post earlier this week about two Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) Advances retractions. As we reported, one of those retractions — for authorship issues — wasn’t signed by all the authors. But that was a publisher error, RSC Advances editor Sarah Ruthven tells Retraction Watch:
The retraction notice on the RSC Advances paper entitled ‘Laser-induced gold/chitosan nanocomposites with tailored wettability applied to multi-irradiated microfluidic channels’, DOI: 10.1039/C2RA21452K, has been corrected. All authors agreed to the retraction of this paper, but due to a technical problem not all authors were listed in the retraction, which was our error. Dr Blasi was aware and agreed to the retraction of the paper, therefore I would appreciate it if you could update your blog with this information.
The paper’s abstract page does in fact now include Blasi’s name on the retraction. However, the PDF of the whole notice — which includes the reason for the retraction, unlike the abstract page, and requires a bit of sleuthing to find from that abstract page — still doesn’t include Blasi. (Update, 11:45 a.m. Eastern, 10/18/12: It now does.) Ruthven tells us
…it is RSC policy for retracted articles to clearly state in the abstract that the paper has been retracted and the full explanation to be given in the PDF of the paper.
It’s not clear to us — particularly given how difficult it is to find that PDF (go ahead, try it and see if you disagree) — why the journal wouldn’t just give the entire reason on the abstract page.