RETRACTION WATCH RECURSIVE FURY


0
Categories : News

The story of Recursive Fury RF began with a previous paper from the same authors, Lewandowsky et al I guess you must be an expert in those departments. This series of events should be a wake-up call to editors and publishers that they must remain resilient to organized campaigns by the blogosphere. It is a very unusual situation. Frontiers retraction controversy with 45 comments The following is a long post, but on an important issue. As she points out, UK libel law changed in the interim to favour academic freedom of expression. Frontiers simply applied the wrong ethical frame of reference.

Well, you can use whatever dictionary you like. The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. Al Gore should be sending you flowers. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics. This makes you an conflicted party and you defending the paper carries little weight. The people who concluded that the paper was not sound include Costanza Zucca and Fred Fenter, who wrote the second Frontiers statement, and Henry Markram who wrote the third. Scott arrived at similar results working independently on portions of the data. John Mashey April 18, at 2:

As far as one can tell, Betts did not stand up for the principle but like the rich and powerful who bought papal indulgences or skip the waiting line at bank counters, he went backstage. In its investigation, the journal found no academic or ethical problems with Recursive Fury. Michael Marriott is still listed as a co-author.

Search Results for “idea retraction notice” – Page 5 – Retraction Watch

The retracted paper is still available in numerous places, e. The hypothesis that some of the main protagonists within the blogosphere subscribe to conspiracist ideation is interesting. Rob — It is ridiculous to say an investigation was made and no issues found.

For an example of this look no further than Anthony Watts Watts up with that? They made a monumental mistake, refused to fix it and that rightfully debate this scientifically? Now the conspiracy theories are getting really silly.

News und Termine

In fact, every one of them has written voluminously that they accept global warming science, but question this or that paper or this or that conclusion. But to apply this frame of reference to Recursive Fury is blinkered. I still personally feel that there may be biotic factors that are recurive well represented in the theoryCloud feedback, CO2 ffury, ocean heat retention.

  GOKUSEN SEASON 1 SUB INDO MP4

Activism that abuses science as a weapon is just not helpful at a time of crisis. Yes, I do think I know better, and I have set out my reasons. By Neuroskeptic April 29, 5: If you want to have an impact as scientists, stop acting like political activists.

Search Results for: idea retraction notice

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.

These groups offer a good example for journals to follow when subjected to organized bullying from contrarians trying to censor sound but inconvenient wstch.

John Mashey April 18, at 2: Frontiers informed the authors of the conclusions of our investigation and worked with the authors in good faith, providing them with the opportunity of submitting a new paper for peer review that would address the issues identified and that could be published simultaneously with the retraction notice.

Now the watcy is out, finally: I remember that because while I did not question his expertise I was not convinced. Since they do not incorporate many of those factors, and cannot do so until stochastic and natural variation factors can be actually predicted. Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation, originally published on 18 March in Frontiers in Psychology.

Search Results for “lewandowsky” – Retraction Watch

This makes you an conflicted party and you defending the paper carries little weight. Far from being insightful and valid, it was based on a self-selected sample with obvious biases, the authors misled readers about where the sample came from, the results depended on obvious outliers and a method that allows conclusions about the relation betwen beliefs about hoaxes even if no one believes in any of the hoaxes.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Frontiers review team signed the above document to obtain a ethics report from University of Western Australia on the retracted Lewandowsky et al Recursive Fury paper. The paper in question, Recursive fury: MikeH April 19, at 5: The above statements suggest if the public interest outweighs disfavour amongst a certain group with respect to public data, then research should not be disadvantaged or prohibited. But he said something with which I agree — for a change!

  WHITE CHICKS FULL MOVIE ONLINE FREE VIOOZ

This is a gross failure of the entire peer review process. As a release describing the new partnership notes: Jaime Jessop April 20, at 7: The authors claim to have analysed reader comments at one venue to determine this.

Markram continued wstch comments: So I hope everyone goes sleeveless today to show support of the 2nd, and by such solidarity shows support of all ten amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Taunting, comment deletion and censorship and comment harvesting was carried out in sequence.

Their first statement was crafted by lawyers. Now maybe the research has to do with some aspect of radiation that has increased.

Does anyone really believe that a public lynching will help advance anything? With so much information of each of us in the public domain, think of a situation where scientists use, for example, machine learning to cluster your public statements and attribute to you personality characteristics, and then name you on the cluster and publish it as a scientific fact in a reputable journal.

Retraction of a paper is no small matter. Journalists are supposed to spot this kind of thing. None of them will address the serious peer review problems. The authors understand this decision, while they stand by their article and regret the limitations on academic freedom which can be caused by legal factors. With greater precaution, science would continue to be employed discovering unknowns, funded by economic turnover. The mistake was detected after publication, and the authors and Frontiers worked hard together for several months to try to find a solution.

With the statement, Team Lewandowsky is suddenly in a shambles they do well when they can control everything.