In July 2017, just days after accepting and publishing a paper, a physics journal discovered “several scientific errors” and decided to retract it.
But the authors—Alexander Kholmetskii and Tolga Yarman—strongly objected to the journal’s decision, so much so they published a detailed rebuttal to the retraction on the preprint server arXiv.
The paper explores a new principle related to Einstein’s theory of relativity. According to the authors, after the Canadian Journal of Physics notified them on July 17 about the decision to retract the paper, they asked the editor to publish their objection “to defend our sound point of view, and beyond this, our scientific reputation.” But Kholmetskii—who lists his affiliation at Belarus State University in Minsk, and Yarman, a professor at Okan University in Istanbul—told us that the editor found their response “inappropriate.” As a result, the authors turned to aiXiv to protest the retraction.
Here’s the retraction notice for “Conservative relativity principle and energy-momentum conservation in a superimposed gravitational and electric field:”
It has been brought to the attention of the Editor that this paper contains several scientific errors. Thus, the editor requested that the paper be rejected. However, as the Can. J. Phys. version of the paper has already been published, this is not possible, and so the Editor of Can. J. Phys. is retracting it.
The paper, accepted on June 15 and published July 5, has not yet been indexed by Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.
The notice, accepted on July 21 and published September 5, does not provide any details about the errors. We’re also not sure why an editor would try to reject a paper that had already been published, and why the journal said it “accepted” a retraction notice that wasn’t submitted by the original authors. The editor of the journal, Michael Steinitz, declined to comment.
In the arXiv post, published September 20, Kholmetskii and Yarman discuss what happened and defend their work. In the post, Kholmetskii and Yarman include a comment they received from one of the associate editors at the journal, who flagged the errors in the paper:
The authors use the example of electromagnetic and gravitational forces cancelling. This is impossible. They have different spins and different polarizations. Their physics is wrong.
The authors acknowledge that the associate editor’s claim is “understandable” and in general “do not argue against this statement.” But the authors clarify that, in the context of their paper, the editor’s comment does not apply. They note:
Recently, Canadian Journal of Physics (CJP) published the retraction with respect to our paper, stating that “this paper contains several scientific errors”. We absolutely disagree with this statement, and continue to be sure that the paper is fully correct. In any case, the readers have the right to be aware about the claimed “several scientific errors” (which are not indicated) and, on the other hand, we have further the responsibility to defend our scientific reputation….we believe that our paper is fully correct from the physical viewpoint, and it contains some results of the principal importance. In these conditions, we actually regret with respect to the decision of CJP to retract this paper, which we believe is interesting and important.
The authors declined to share their correspondence with the journal.
This isn’t the first time researchers have used arXiv to comment on the literature. In one recent case, authors posted that they requested the retraction of a 2010 paper in Nature Chemistry.
Hat tip: Rolf Degen
Like Retraction Watch? Consider making a tax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, sign up on our homepage for an email every time there’s a new post, or subscribe to our daily digest. Click here to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what we’re working on, click here. If you have comments or feedback, you can reach us at [email protected].
THE RHETORIC OF RELIGION AND POLITICS INVADES CIENCE: “…we BELIEVE that our paper is fully correct from the physical viewpoint…” INSTEAD OF PROVING IT.
Really? Perhaps linguistic nuances are lost on you, which is a shame because the word “believe” is wholly appropriate in this context.
You can’t prove anything in science, just find evidence for our against. Belief, based on evidence, is not the same as faith.
To be fair, the editor failed to detail the errors made and could face the same accusation. Given the writing presented here in the quote, the errors could be language difficulties more than errors in understanding.
If you read the authors’ reply, it comes as close to a proof as anybody can want. Forces can cancel even in situations where fields can’t. It seems to me that the editor acted as a referee and misread the sentence he is objecting to. This retraction should be retracted forthwith.
Precisely right. The Millikan oil drop experiment, for which Millikan won a Nobel prize, is one such example. Electrically charged liquid droplets between electrically charged plates hover in place when the electical charge to the plates equals the electrical charge of the droplets, the downward gravitational force exactly counterbalanced by an upward eletrical force. This is how the charge of the electron was first calculated experimentally in 1909. Amazing that an editor of a physics journal would not know this.
A little bit off-topic… but kudos to Canadian Science Publishing (publisher of CJP) for telling OMICS to take their journal-buyout offer and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/predatory-science-publisher-offers-to-buy-ottawa-firm
Not my field so I cannot comment about the details, but this sounds like a good way to handle scientific disputes. The point can be extended also to these questionable retractions and mass editorial resigning that Retraction Watch has recently covered.
there is a significant power asymmetry between the publisher and the author in most cases though. Wouldn’t a letter to the editor by the editor published with a response from the author be the way to go?