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

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, … Continue reading Co-author of retracted conspiracy ideation-climate skepticism paper addresses apparent contradictions

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

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

Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted

A 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 … Continue reading Controversial paper linking conspiracy ideation to climate change skepticism formally retracted

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

A bumper crop of material about misconduct, peer review, and related issues came to our attention this week, so without further ado: