The hand of the Creator, postscript

 Electronic resources, Pseudoscience  Kommentarer inaktiverade för The hand of the Creator, postscript
Mar 092016
 

Designed by MichaelangeloIn January, PLOS ONE published an article which in several statements revealed itself as expressing creationist values. When discovered last week comments poured in to PLOS ONE and other online media, pointing to the numerous shortcomings of the article, including the references to intelligent design and specifically the design of the human hand by a Creator. I also commented on this case as follow up on an earlier blog post.

Eventually, and conspicuously, PLOS ONE concluded that the article had to be retracted, the obvious conclusion of the scientists commenting on the article.

The PLOS ONE editors have followed up on the concerns raised about this publication. We have completed an evaluation of the history of the submission and received advice from two experts in our editorial board. Our internal review and the advice we have received have confirmed the concerns about the article and revealed that the peer review process did not adequately evaluate several aspects of the work.

In light of the concerns identified, the PLOS ONE editors have decided to retract the article, the retraction is being processed and will be posted as soon as possible. We apologize for the errors and oversight leading to the publication of this paper.

Although there is still no explanation how it could happen, PLOS ONE is to be credited for taking a resolute action. It is interesting and reassuring also to experience that the scientific community is actually an alert and active watchdog, playing a significant role in defending science from scams.

Case closed while still hot. What will happen next!?

 

 

 

The hand of the Creator

 biodiversity informatics, Electronic resources, Pseudoscience  Kommentarer inaktiverade för The hand of the Creator
Mar 022016
 

Designed by MichaelangeloIn a post not long ago on SCI-HUB and its importance for communicating science, I also made some remarks on the quality of topnotch journals. Don’t expect quality because it is expensive or has a so-called Impact Factor of significance. And now it rains gold on my modest point. PLOS ONE (reads Public Library of Science)  is a well renowned Open Access Journal (authors pay), with the following statement:

PLOS ONE upholds rigorous standards for quality. Every article we publish undergoes peer review led by one of approximately 6,000 PLOS ONE Academic Editors.

On 5 January, the journal published a long article about human hand biomechanics. An eye-opener for many on how wrong things can go, but there was some latency before the article became widely known. Already the abstract got the scientific society to turn to twitter #HandOfGod, blogs and other social media for exclamations (this is just one):

The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way

It is actually quite funny. A long text on the intelligent and purposeful design of the human hand and – blasphemically – how it can be model for robot hands:

The clear link between the structure and the function of the human hand also suggests that the design of a multifunctional robotic hand should be able to better imitate such basic architecture.

Obviously there was no editing or review of this contribution, and it was probably hit by a wholly inadvertent blunder somewhere along the way. S happens. It is surprising, however,  that PLOS ONE do not retract the paper . Retraction Watch has already set out the net.

Could it happen with fish papers? Sure, worse stuff gets published all the time but you are not likely to read much about it here because I am of the opinion that I should not comment on particular fish research here, but only in scientific peer reviewed publications. But papers on intelligent design are not scientific, and it is really amusing when they slip into  respectable journals.

Has something like this happened before?  Yes, creationsists are bragging about it here, but note that most journals publishing their pseudoscience are of lesseer quality. A major scandal was a paper in the well-renowned Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Do we have to be afraid that pseudoscience takes over? No, only real science can provide reliable explanations of the world and its history. LOL!

Only today, PLOS editors have reacted to their own temporary demise:

PLOS ONE editors apologize that language wasn’t addressed pre-publication. We’re looking into concerns w/ priority.

As if language were the problem …Where were the reviewers, the editors?

Kyplex Cloud Security Seal - Click for Verification