In this case, some fish mating researchers wrote an, um, love note to their peers that failed to be edited out by any of the many eyes who must have at least glanced over it.
Here’s our favorite passage in “Variation in Melanism and Female Preference in Proximate but Ecologically Distinct Environments” (emphasis ours), published in Ethology:
Although association preferences documented in our study theoretically could be a consequence of either mating or shoaling preferences in the different female groups investigated (should we cite the crappy Gabor paper here?), shoaling preferences are unlikely drivers of the documented patterns both because of evidence from previous research and inconsistencies with a priori predictions.
If that’s not a candidate for #overlyhonestmethods, we’re not sure what is. Let’s hope they were focusing too hard on the science to notice the citations.
Or maybe they meant “crappie.”
Update, 12:50 p.m. Eastern, 11/11/14: The journal has apparently removed the paper sometime in the last 15 minutes and replaced it with
Sorry an error has occurred
We have asked the publisher for comment, and will update with anything we learn.
Update, 1:30 p.m. Eastern, 11/11/14: Corresponding author Zach Culumber tells us:
Update, 2:20 p.m. Eastern, 11/11/14: A Wiley spokesperson tells us:
Update, 11:30 a.m. Eastern, 11/12/14: Caitlin Gabor got in touch. She told us she knows a few of the authors, and has published with author Michi Tobler in the past:
I would appreciate an apology from all of the authors.
Hat tip: Dave Harris