Elsevier says it is investigating how one of its journals managed to publish a paper with patently absurd assertions about the genetic inheritance of personality traits.
The paper, “Temperament gene inheritance,” appears this month in Meta Gene and was written by authors in Saudi Arabia and Turkey. It states:
On the observation of different people personalities over the years we came to the conclusion that temperament is regularly inherited by the son from the mother, and by the daughter from the father. Such a transmission mode is the indicative of the X chromosome-linked inheritance, as well as, a temperament gene location on the X chromosome. Compared with the autosomes, the X chromosome contains an unusually large number of genes involved in nervous system development and function, and when mutated they cause mental impairment.
Carl Bergstrom, a prominent biologist at the University of Washington who is co-author of a new book called Calling Bullshit, flagged several of the “transparently ridiculous” claims in Twitter thread:
Elsevier responded on Twitter to Bergstrom, stating:
Erm, about that concerning peer review process. Elsevier also was the publisher of the equally risible book chapter claiming that COVID-19 came to earth on a meteorite. Why did the journal not share those concerns before these papers were published?
And, as Bergstrom points out, is it really only preprint servers we should worry about? At least they’re completely upfront about the fact that they’re not peer-reviewed.
Bergstrom’s followers on Twitter point to several other examples of how the Elsevier mothership failed to guard against invasion by preposterous papers. Our archives, as Retraction Watch readers know, are not exactly bereft of such cases.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
I would like to thank everyone without exception, for contributing to this discussion. Our present work ‘Temperament gene inheritance’is purely hypothetical, and describes the putative mechanisms of a temperament inheritance. We hope our explanations for a temperament gene and its X chromosome-linked inheritance mode would serve as a foundation for sophisticated future works, which may verify the validity of our suggestions…In concluding remarks we mentioned:
3. The hypothesis of the cumulus cells maternal X chromosome skewed expression also needs to be verified. Especially the confirmation (or rejection) of the 2nd and 3rd hypotheses in future investigations is very important for a validity status of our whole present work. We also mentioned in the end article that: Finally, the obvious limitation of the current work, is its hypothetical nature and therefore, physical basis of proposed mechanisms remains to be investigated. So the validity status of this article should not be determined by tweets, but by sophisticated studies.
Some people (Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Kiersey (psychologist)…..) were able to propose hypotheses which required some years to centuries to be proved. What is the common feature among these people? They all have the same temperament – INTP. This type of people respect not dogmas, but pure reason and can go beyond the outer shell of mind, which was established by a present state of science. They are not prophets, but only scientifically lucky INTPs, which lived in the ‘right time’ (by the way, I am also INTP…).
So, I think a time span of 1-5 years is needed for the proposed mechanisms of this article to be accepted or rejected. But even if those are rejected after a few years, other hypotheses would be needed to prove not much an obvious to everybody fact: temperament is regularly inherited by the son from the mother and by the daughter from the father. Azer Israfil
We proposed in our article that 16 different VAMP7 alleles (14 of them seemed to be already identified) might be corresponding to 16 types of a temperament. With psychologist-geneticist collaboration, 16 temperament types and a respective full range of VAMP7 alleles identification would promote the creation of “16 temperaments/and corresponding 16 VAMP7 alleles” data. If the mentioned data is reliably established in a near future, then we would make a noticeable movement from ‘a subjective era’, where a putative temperament identification is done by subjective measures (observation/evaluation and questionnaires), toward ‘an objective era’, where ‘measurement’ of a temperament type is done by a revealing of an appropriate VAMP7 allele in a genetic analysis.
Perhaps the authors would be better off withdrawing this paper and resubmitting it after collecting data supporting (or not) the hypothesis. Without data, this appears to be a work of fiction.
As you can see from the tweets and present blog, kindly constructed for all of us by Sir Adam Marcus, there is no scientifically based argument against our article. Logically, Elsevier would not rely on biased and completely “peer review free” tweets and tweet-like comments. As one of the most prestigious publisher in the world, Elsevier should always try to protect its image, and not to damage it.
It is pretty evident that if so far unproven ‘Temperament gene inheritance’ is proven, then it will be one of the most fundamental biological laws, and would deserve the highest attention. That would be difficult to be accepted by some people. I believe that even if those people autonomously do short term work to “disprove” the proposed inheritance pattern, future fundamental studies must fully support our “Temperament gene inheritance” basic law, but might provide some minor or major corrections in the explanatory hypotheses. I hope, after that and onward, people will kindly remember us.
I appreciate the authors engaging in this discussion, but they have not yet addressed the various concerns expressed.
“It is pretty evident that if so far unproven ‘Temperament gene inheritance’ is proven, then it will be one of the most fundamental biological laws, and would deserve the highest attention.”
While the authors seem comfortable with the hypothetical nature of their paper, it is the absence of evidence that the critics are highlighting. The authors’ hypothesis may eventually turn out to be correct, however it is up to the authors to make the case, rather than critics to prove otherwise. This is why this paper will most likely be retracted.
It might save all involved some time if they were to read this Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
During the discussion held here, the general opinion has been evolved from “it never can be” to “it can be, but has to be proven by the original authors”. If the last notion had worked throughout the science history, we would never have seen the present state of biology, quantum physics would not have been born at all, and so on…Here is the only one example:
– ‘Before the advent of general relativity, Newton’s law of universal gravitation had been accepted for more than two hundred years as a valid description of the gravitational force between masses, even though Newton himself did not regard the theory as the final word on the nature of gravity…Einstein by late 1915, had published his general theory of relativity in the form in which it is used today.[6] This theory explains gravitation as distortion of the structure of spacetime by matter, affecting the inertial motion of other matter…In 1918, the Lick Observatory, also in California, announced that it too had disproved Einstein’s prediction, although its findings were not published.[9]…However, in May 1919, a team led by the British astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington claimed to have confirmed Einstein’s prediction of gravitational deflection of starlight by the sun while photographing a solar eclipse with dual expeditions in Sobral, northern Brazil, and Príncipe, a west African island.[4] …Some resented the newcomer’s fame, notably among some German physicists, who later started the Deutsche Physik (German Physics) movement.[14][15]’- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_general_relativity
We believe in the truth in science, and we’d like to believe in Elsevier’s kind objectivity.
We would like to thank Elsevier’s reviewer(s) for their very reasonable critical questions, sent to us by email several days ago. The correction of the article, made on the basis of those important points, will definitely improve its quality. Now I am going to show you our corrected “3.9. Concluding remarks” part from the email, which has been sent to the reviewer(s). The corrected sentences are included in {…} parentheses.
3.9. Concluding remarks (SOME HYPOTHESES NUMBER WAS CHANGED):
We hope our explanations for a temperament gene and its X chromosome-linked inheritance mode would serve as a foundation for sophisticated future studies, which may verify the validity of our following hypotheses. { Those studies are expected to be quite hard, and will necessitate the integrative work of geneticists, cell biologists (with specialization in the reproductive system),
psychologists and psychiatrists. }
1.In the presence of a normal (not silent) temperament allele, it will be inherited by the son from the mother in 100%, and by the daughter from the father in 98% of cases. The father’s Xq/Yq PAR recombination in 2% of cases will reduce the high rate of occurrence of the mentioned transmission mode. { This is the basic hypothesis, and the following auxiliary hypotheses are designed for its support. }
2. Even though many genes might be involved in temperament, we assume that the VAMP7 gene would take a major part in the control of temperament and its inheritance. Besides its role in neuritogenesis, the VAMP7 mediated outward migration feature of vesicles in the female meiosis I might support this point of view. The paternal VAMP7 allele is supposed to express in the female metaphase I, to promote the pushing of the meiotic spindle/chromosomes to the cortex, consequently extruding the maternal X chromatids in the first polar body and preserving the paternal allele in the secondary oocyte/ovum for the next generation { (for a geneticist and a cell biologist). }
{ 3.To reduce or perhaps even completely eliminate the future great efforts expected in the verification of all shown hypotheses in this section, it is wise to start with a relatively simple and at the same time, most important step: the proof of the female’s only paternal (but not maternal!) VAMP7 allele has been determined in all her children, both sons and daughters, in a statistical amount of family lineages. If this has been proven, it would make sensible to proceed with more complicated further investigations (for a geneticist). }
4. Although the only 14 mRNAs have been found for the VAMP7 gene so far, the examination of VAMP7 alleles in the people with 16 different temperament types would help in the verification of its all the relevant alleles. { The foundation of the reliable data for “16 temperaments and corresponding 16 VAMP7 alleles” will promote the temperament determination from subjective methods (observation, questionnaires) toward the objective one in the future, where the revealing of an appropriate VAMP7 allele in a genetic analysis, will “measure” a person’s temperament (for a geneticist and a psychologist). }
5. Besides epigenetically derived character of a person, some autosome genes, e.g., D4DR, 5-HTT, might make some diversity within a personality picture, depicted by a temperament gene { (for a geneticist and a psychologist). }
{ 6. A clinical examination of patients with deleted or mutated VAMP7 allele, would determine the extent of ‘normal’ temperament preservation (for a geneticist and a clinical psychologist (psychiatrist)). }
7. Temperament is probably controlled by the left brain. The investigation of the left-right asymmetric X chromosome inactivation in aborted female fetuses’ brain and postmortem female’s brain tissues, as well as further experiments on transgenic mammal brains can be valuable in temperament studies { (for a geneticist and a cell biologist). }
8. The verification of the cumulus cells’ maternal X chromosome skewed expression { (by a geneticist and a cell biologist). }
9. After the extrusion of the first polar body, the side of the Tm-containing recombinant chromatid of the paternal X chromosome appears nearer to the overlying cell cortex, in compare to the non-recombinant chromatid side. This recombinant side might be localized mildly proximal to the cortex in metaphase II which would determine the extrusion of the second polar body via this pole { (for a geneticist and a cell biologist). }
10. Before the extrusion of the second polar body, the paternal X chromosome (and the same side autosomes) sister chromatids might undergo some recombinations in meiosis II. But if meiosis II recombinations occur between meiosis I non-recombinant segments of sister chromatids, they would not be detected, because of identical DNA sequences. Therefore, the female X chromosomes might be mistakenly described as meiosis non-recombinant in some studies { (for a geneticist and a cell biologist). }
11. The female’s meiosis I non-recombinant chromatid of the paternal X chromosome, not only plays a role in the self-preservation and extrusion of the other three chromatids of bivalent via polar bodies, but it also controls the same side autosome chromatids preservation in the ovum and their transmission to the next generation { (for a geneticist and a cell biologist). }
Especially we would like to point out the 3rd paragraph, which can be the start line for all the future studies. As we wrote, the chance of the father to transmit his own temperament to the daughters is 98%. Because of this reason, and also to minimize the braking effect of biased work (in analogy with those, described in my last comment on September 14, 2020) the amount of the investigated family lineages might be at least n=50 to 100 worldwide, in order to get objective statistical results.
I hope doi.org/10.1016/j.mgene.2020.100728, or osf.io/r8mxz/ (preprint, if needed) will be helpful in the future “Temperament gene inheritance” studies.
One wonders how familiar the authors are with the literature.
For example, from Cloninger, C.R., Cloninger, K.M., Zwir, I. et al. The complex genetics and biology of human temperament: a review of traditional concepts in relation to new molecular findings. Transl Psychiatry 9, 290 (2019):
“[W]e have recently used data-driven methods to identify single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that map to 972 genes that explained nearly all the variability in temperament and character expected from twin studies in three independent samples of Finns, Germans, and Koreans.”
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-019-0621-4
(Interestingly a Cloninger paper from 1994 is cited, but not this more recent work).
In this round of discussion I would like to thank our scientific opponent for his productive contribution (September 16, 2020 at 10:09 am). In the article of Cloninger et al. (2019) those 972 genes include 245 associated with temperament only, 236 with character only, and 491 with both temperament and character. Therefore, total 245+491=736 genes were involved with a temperament, which also was mentioned by authors.. Considering this, I am informing our Elsevier’s reviewers, we would like to add 1 sentence from ‘Abstract’ of that article to the moderately corrected 3rd paragraph of our article ‘Introduction”, shown below:
….However, we cannot favor the last hypotheses. { Recent genome-wide association studies have shown that temperament is influenced by more than 700 genes that modulate associative conditioning by molecular processes for synaptic plasticity and long-term learning and memory – Cloninger, C.R., Cloninger, K.M., Zwir, I. et al. The complex genetics and biology of human temperament: a review of traditional concepts in relation to new molecular findings. Transl Psychiatry 9, 290 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-019-0621-4 } { According to us } although many genes (WE REMOVED the word ‘may’ from here) have some (WE REMOVED the word ‘axillary’ from here) roles in temperament, one of them should have decisive regulatory control, based on the mentioned regular (not random) inheritance mode of temperament. In meiosis I recombination, functionally related different gene alleles shuffling between homologous chromosomes, reduces the possibility of having more than one paramount gene in temperament determination . { This factor also will prevent having “mixed” temperaments }.
One of the two X chromosomes in the developing female embryo ……
The corrected ‘Introduction’, sent to the reviewers starts like this:
{ “Temperament” refers to the consistent, biologically based dynamic aspects of behavior. About 2400 years ago Hippocrates and then Galen described four types of “temperamentums”, or mixtures of bodily chemical components. According to their theory, in a healthy individual this mixture is balanced, and an imbalance in this mixture causes noticeable and consistent patterns of behavior: choleric (impulsive), melancholic (depressive), phlegmatic (socially detached) and sanguine (manic) (Trofimova, 2010). Different temperament types occupied the interests of many researchers since those times, and a number of personality tests have been used to assess individuals’ personality. One common personality test is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which identifies 16 possible personality types (Franklin et al., 2013). For more information { on the psychological aspects of temperament, } we would rather refer the readers to “Please Understand Me II” by Kiersey (1998), { since the aim of our study was the discussion of a temperament gene and its inheritance patterns by the integrative genetic, molecular and intracellular putative mechanisms. }
CONTINUATION OF MY LAST COMMENT TO THE SCIENTIFIC OPPONENT’S September 16, 2020 at 10:09 am COMMENT:
Here are the equivalent temperament types by Galen, Kiersey and Cloninger, respectively:
Melancholic= Guardian= Harm avoidance type
Sanguine= Artisan= Novelty seeking type
Choleric= Idealist= Reward dependence type
Phlegmatic= Rational= Persistence type
David Kiersey grouped the 16 Myers-Briggs temperament types in the above-mentioned 4 types and each type included 4 temperaments (4×4=16). As the Presence is the repetition of the Past, but in so-called ‘higher’ level, Kiersey was able to embrace the past and look forward. Therefore, I referred the readers to read his very interesting book in this field.
Using the discussion platform I would like still to add a few words to the corrected second paragraph of ‘Introduction’, which was already sent to the reviewers:
….On the observation of different people’s personalities over the years we came to the conclusion that a temperament is regularly inherited by the son from the mother, and by the daughter from the father. { Temperament observations were performed on our relatives, friends, celebrity families (through TV media and web) and our multiple clinical patients over 15 years. The supposed temperament inheritance tendency seem {ed} to be valid in almost all cases, where the parents had the opposite vectors of temperament (extraverted vs introverted, so-called “bossy” vs “modest”). We saw this kind of families pretty much, maybe because of “the opposites attract each other”. But in cases where the parents had “the same character”, their children also showed similar temperaments in vast majority of cases. } IN THE NEXT SENTENCE WE WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE ‘Such a’ AND WRITE THE SENTENCE LIKE THIS: { The absence of male-to-male } temperament transmission mode { in our observations might be } the indicative of the X chromosome-linked inheritance, as well as, a temperament gene location on the X chromosome…..
One more point. Since not all the supposed full range of VAMP7 alleles, corresponding to 16 temperament types was found, the future probable identification of new alleles could not be easily distinguished yet from silent mutations of VAMP7 gene. Contrary to normal paternal VAMP7 allele transmission mode which was discussed in the 3rd paragraph of the corrected Concluding remarks (September 15, 2020 at 3:20 pm), in cases with silent mutation the female’s paternal VAMP7 allele might not be transmitted to all her children. Instead, those alleles with silent mutation would be transmitted through supposed “A silent (mutated or deleted) gene inheritance mode” of Figure 1. Due to this, for the paternal VAMP7 allele identification, the examination of more than n=50-100 family lineages might be needed (maybe around n=>100-200 in total?) for statistical results. This issue must be discussed with statistical geneticists during future genetic analyses.
Myers-Briggs typology? Why not astrology as well?
The retrospective, evidence-free pigeon-holing of Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Kiersey as INTP is (as the Wikipedians say) “Cit.Req”. Galileo has been described in many ways, but “Introverted” is not one of them.
Wow – putting your name next to Einstein’s. What a claim
This is my first time I have clicked thru from the email and the retracted article is relevant to me. My situation is of course anecdotal, but, in my families case, it is true that I my personality corresponds with my mother’s; neurotic, emotianally unstable, self-conscious, introspective, etc. whereas my younger sister’s personality corresponds with my father’s; stable, matter of fact, reality based. As for the Myers-Briggs, I have not studied it but I know there is much skepticism about it and it it may be considered “woow” by many. I will just conclude with a 1960s Laugh-in “Very Interesting” (if you are old enough to remember that) characterization of the article.
David, if you read the article you will see it did not actually test the MBTI of participants and did not explain what aspect of MBTI would be affected by this gene. There is only a proposal that a mechanism might exist, and that it might correlate to MBTI in an unspecified way. No experiment was conducted.
It would actually be more scientific to believe in astrology. The mechanism of this paper is about as specific as astrology, but astrology proposes specific correlations of birth dates and makes testable predictions about the consequences of being born at certain dates and times.
“Our present work ‘Temperament gene inheritance’is purely hypothetical, and describes the putative mechanisms of a temperament inheritance”
I suggest the authors to change “temperament” for obesity, cancer, diabetes, or the timely Covid resistance, and the paper would have even more impact. After all, the authors just need their hypothesis validated by actual experiments on subsequent studies.
Elsevier has continually povoded very poor reviews over the years. I have submitted work and the so called experts know very little on the topic area. I beg this journal to stop fooling the pubic with their nonsense.
Responding to the author’s 9/18 post: the author might find the thread on PubPeer to be a more suitable forum for further discussion: https://pubpeer.com/publications/C276844C0ECDC6559E837BB624563C
In that thread, I (posting there as ‘A.B.’) noted an additional concern regarding a source cited in the paper.
Reply to the scientific opponent’s invitation (September 18, 2020 at 12:15 pm) about shifting the platform of discussion:
I will prefer to stay on the main and the ‘highest’ platform, because here we will be seen from everywhere
Before even starting to write the article, I emailed to Tyra Arraj and asked permission to cite from their source. The permission and the source name mentioned in our article References were given to me personally by Tyra Arraj.
Dear Dr. Azer Israfil,
Yes, you have permission for citing the article “Type and Genetics” from Tracking the Elusive Human, Vol. 2.
from: Tyra Arraj
to: Azer Israfil
date: Oct 21, 2018, 2:37 AM
subject: Re: citing article
mailed-by: innerexplorations.com
signed-by: innerexplorations.com
security: Standard encryption (TLS) Learn more
According to the journal rules, as it is a citation from online copy, the editors of journal put the year (2020) of our journal submission for publication with the URL address shown.
Arraj, T. “Type and Genetics” from Tracking the Elusive Human. Vol. 2 (2020). http://www.innerexplorations.com/psytext/rt.htm
Thank you for your replies. My 2 points are:
1. This material was published in 1990 (my point was not that you formatted your citation incorrectly). There have been advances in these fields in the past 30 years including the debunking of some of the views expressed in this book.
2. This book is not peer reviewed literature. As such, it has not been scrutinized by the scientific community and it should be read with a degree of skepticism. If the opinions and claims have been supported in the peer reviewed literature, it would be better for the authors to cite those works instead of this book (3 times).
Reply to Comments – September 18, 2020 at 4:47 pm
Thanks also for your clarification and contributions. The scientists are demanded to be skeptical in all scientific matters, but I really did not have wanted to be in that mood at all in front of those writings of Tyra Arraj. From her media pictures and numerous philosophical books she seems to be a kind and very intelligent person. Although it is not much reliable to say, and I hope you will not criticize me for doing so, I would guess she is INFP (Healer, by Kiersey). This type of people usually have positive feelings/attitudes toward the world, and at the same time have a big potential to be very intelligent. William Shakespeare and Franz Kafka are among other INFP people…
We wrote in the 3rd paragraph of ‘Introduction’:
A temperament gene and its inheritance mechanisms have never been ACADEMICALLY addressed. BY INFORMING OUR REVIEWERS, WE WANT TO REPLACE ‘general’ with ‘not peer reviewed’ in the next sentence: Nevertheless, in one { not peer reviewed } source (Arraj, 2020) related to a temperament (introversion and extraversion) inheritance, mentioned that virtually nothing is known about its transmission mode….
Since not all the supposed full range of VAMP7 alleles, corresponding to 16 temperament types was found, the future probable identification of new alleles could not be easily distinguished yet from silent mutations of VAMP7 gene. Contrary to normal paternal VAMP7 allele transmission mode which was discussed in the 3rd paragraph of the corrected Concluding remarks (September 15, 2020 at 3:20 pm), in cases with silent mutation the female’s paternal VAMP7 allele might not be transmitted to all her children. Instead, those alleles with silent mutation would be transmitted through supposed “A silent (mutated or deleted) gene inheritance mode” of Figure 1. Due to this, for the paternal VAMP7 allele identification, the examination of more than n=50-100 family lineages might be needed (maybe around n=>100-200 in total?) for statistical results. This issue must be discussed with statistical geneticists during future genetic analyses.
Considering my comments on September 15, 2020 at 3:20 pm and September 18, 2020 at 7:08 pm, the LAST VERSION of 3rd paragraph in the corrected Concluding remarks should be like this:
{ 3.To reduce or perhaps even completely eliminate future great efforts expected in the verification of all shown hypotheses in this section, it is wise to start with a relatively simple and at the same time, most important step: the proof of the female’s only paternal (but not maternal!) VAMP7 allele has been determined in all her children, both sons and daughters. But we should be aware that since not all the supposed full range of VAMP7 alleles, corresponding to 16 temperament types were found yet, the supposed identification of future new alleles could not be easily distinguished from silent mutations of VAMP7 gene. Contrary to a normal paternal VAMP7 allele transmission mode described here, silent mutations of the female’s paternal VAMP7 gene might not be transmitted to all her children and may follow supposed “A silent (mutated or deleted) gene inheritance mode”. Therefore, for a paternal VAMP7 allele identification, a high enough amount of family lineages should be examined for statistical results. If the mentioned pattern has been proven, it would make sensible to proceed with more complicated further investigations (for a geneticist). }
I received the emails from different distinguished professors of prestigious universities in the USA and Europe, in which they wrote that the article was very interesting and very nicely reasoned. Till 23 November 2020, 4401 people downloaded our article (later, that Mendeley service, showing numbers of downloads, was stopped for everybody in December).
In addition to my blog comments on September 10, 2020 at 6:51 pm and September 14, 2020 at 4:04 am, I want to express that after the article retraction, Elsevier will probably experience some loss of reputation for now and even more, later, after our hypotheses (or at least the main hypothesis) will be proven in subsequent researches.
As we expected, our hypotheses have become even more solid and viable during this Retaction Watch plarform due to a lack of any sustained scientific argument against them. It is time to think about a RETRACTION of the RETRACTION of our article ITSELF. A start of a Another Retraction Watch in
http://retractionwatch.com/2021/03/24/a-journal-retracts-a-paper-called-transparently-ridiculous-and-an-author-says-thank-you/
must follow the same fate as the present one.
The best initial way to verify the validity of our hypotheses is to examine if the dautgher’s all children have inherited her paternal, but not maternal VAMP7 allele – see my comment on September 19, 2020 at 7:53 am.
In this discussion platform and also in social media, contrary to the proponents of our hypotheses, the opponents of the article should provide at least some sustaining arguments with logical content. Otherwise, those people look like a part of a smear campaign. Even in the historical Inquisition times, priests had some grounding arguments against new and progressive scientific ideas.
As a supporter of progressive science, Elsevier must stand apart from those people and do Retract the Retraction. Each delayed day works against a future of science.
“Known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns” (Donald Rumsfeld)… One year has passed since our article started online on 4 May 2020, which made “knowns” in a field of “unknown unknowns.” During this period our challenging hypotheses have not been disproven by counterarguments. As with any scientific work it is worth mentioning that some of our hypotheses might be corrected or even disproven in future, although they would not diminish much the total value of the article. If some “knowns” of our article are appeared as questionable points, then they would behave as “known unknowns”, thus encouraging and promoting further researches in those fields.
Thesis, antithesis and synthesis (Hegel, Fichte)… There would not be Antitheses (counterarguments) and Syntheses (new articles in those fields) without the Theses (our hypotheses).
Dear Elsevier, as the Retraction Watches status shows, the readers – including “the opponents” – are in tune with our hypotheses overall validity and waiting for your expected kind decision of RETRACTION of RETRACTION.
On 1 September 2020 Mr. Carl T. Bergstrom, and afterwards his tweet followers started “the campaign” against our article. After my challenging comments in the Retraction Watch, I expected in vain to get at least one logical counterargument from him about our hypotheses. With all my respect to him, as he has not given any scientific argument after saying “transparently ridiculous”, the net impression is: ‘Mr. Carl T. Bergstrom is transparently unable to argue against our hypotheses in this field.’
We appreciate much the arguments of (the scientific opponent) “Regret.” Nevertheless, from the main Retraction Watch, the readers can easily notice the triumph of our hypotheses over those scientific arguments.
Replying to the Meta Gene chief editor’s claim, I declared that our article was written on the ground of the scientific data from 91 references. Its First retraction (watch) was based on the “famous” tweets of Carl T. Bergstrom and his tweet followers. Therefore, a more relevant reason was aimed in the Second retraction watch, but that was no more than the proposal of “Cheshire @Thatsregrettab1” (in the start of watch) with the funny meaning that first you retract, and only then (??) search for the retraction reason.
These cases will not be sincerely accepted by objective scientific communities, unless the next step, namely, generous Retraction of Retraction will be followed.