Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Search Results

Update: Lewandowsky et al paper on conspiracist ideation “provisionally removed” due to complaints

with 31 comments

frontiersLast week, we covered the complicated story of a paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues that had been removed — or at least all but the abstract — from its publisher’s site. Our angle on the story was how Frontiers, which publishes Frontiers in Personality Science and Individual Differences, where the study appeared, had handled the withdrawal. It happened without any notice, and no text appeared to let the reader know why the paper had vanished.

Today, Frontiers posted a note to readers on top of the paper’s abstract: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

April 3rd, 2013 at 7:39 am

Why publishers should explain why papers disappear: The complicated Lewandowsky study saga

with 42 comments

frontiersLast year, Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues posted a paper, scheduled for an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, with a, shall we say, provocative title:

NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax

An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science

In an interview last year with Lewandowsky, NPR gathered some of the reactions to the paper — which was formally published two days ago — from those it profiled: Read the rest of this entry »

Weekend reads: Retraction Watch on NPR; “hysteria” over replication; when a paywall might be a good thing

with 11 comments

booksIt’s been another busy week at Retraction Watch, mostly because of the unfolding Jens Förster story. Here’s what was happening elsewhere on the web: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

May 3rd, 2014 at 9:00 am

Co-author of retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper addresses apparent contradictions

with 86 comments



We — and others — have been scratching our heads about the real reasons for the formal retraction on March 21 of a Frontiers in Psychology paper since the journal issued a statement on the subject on Friday that seemed to contradict the retraction notice and that certainly differed from accounts on some blogs. Today, we learned a few more details about what happened in the year between when the paper was provisionally removed and then formally retracted from a post by Stephan Lewandowsky, one of the co-authors of the paper.

The March 21 statement, writes Lewandowsky, Read the rest of this entry »

Journal that retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper says it did not “cave into threats”

with 334 comments

frontiersFrontiers in Psychology, which last month formally retracted a controversial paper linking climate skepticism to conspiracy ideation, says it did not cave in to threats from skeptics, contrary to what a lot of news reports and commentary implied or claimed.

For example, summarizing a number of those reports this morning, before Frontiers had issued its statement, co-author Stephan Lewandowsky wrote on his blog:

By and large, the mainstream media coverage seems to have picked up on what’s really at issue here, namely academic freedom and editorial intimidation by a small band of vociferous individuals.

Here’s the statement, in which Frontiers stresses the rights of the people Lewandowsky and his colleagues wrote about:

Read the rest of this entry »

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted

with 106 comments

frontiersA year after being clumsily removed from the web following complaints, a controversial paper about “the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science” is being retracted.

The paper, “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation,” was authored by Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook, Klaus Oberauer, and Michael Marriott, and published in Frontiers in Psychology: Personality Science and Individual Differences.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

March 21st, 2014 at 7:54 am

Weekend reads: Most scientific fraudsters keep their jobs, random acts of academic kindness, and more

with 20 comments

booksA bumper crop of material about misconduct, peer review, and related issues came to our attention this week, so without further ado: Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Ivan Oransky

January 4th, 2014 at 9:30 am