H/T to Barry Woods. The Frontiers in Psychology journal editors have issued this statement regarding the retraction of Stephan Lewandowsky’s deeply unpleasant attack on climate sceptics. They confirm that contrary to the claims of the usual suspects, no ‘threats’ were involved in the retraction decision. Why did Bristol University give Lewandowsky a tenured professorship. Why did the royal Society give him an award? Something stinks.
(Lausanne, Switzerland) – There has been a series of media reports concerning the recent retraction of the paper Recursive Fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation, originally published on 18 March 2013 in Frontiers in Psychology. Until now, our policy has been to handle this matter with discretion out of consideration for all those concerned. But given the extent of the media coverage – largely based on misunderstanding – Frontiers would now like to better clarify the context behind the retraction.
As we published in our retraction statement, a small number of complaints were received during the weeks following publication. Some of those complaints were well argued and cogent and, as a responsible publisher, our policy is to take such issues seriously. Frontiers conducted a careful and objective investigation of these complaints. Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.
As a result of its investigation, which was carried out in respect of academic, ethical and legal factors, Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects. Specifically, the article categorizes the behaviour of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics. 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.
The authors agreed and subsequently proposed a new paper that was substantially similar to the original paper and, crucially, did not deal adequately with the issues raised by Frontiers.
We remind the community that the retracted paper does not claim to be about climate science, but about psychology. The actions taken by Frontiers sought to ensure the right balance of respect for the rights of all.
One of Frontiers’ founding principles is that of authors’ rights. We take this opportunity to reassure our editors, authors and supporters that Frontiers will continue to publish – and stand by – valid research. But we also must uphold the rights and privacy of the subjects included in a study or paper.
Frontiers is happy to speak to anyone who wishes to have an objective and informed conversation about this. In such a case, please contact the Editorial Office at editorial.office@frontiersin.org.
Costanza Zucca, Editorial Director
Fred Fenter, Executive Editor
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
As Barry Woods points out on twitter, this statement flatly contradicts Lewandowsky’s own claims, also freshly made today, that the paper was retracted due to ‘legal fears’.
http://shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rfmedia.html
Just in case, I’ve webcited it here: http://www.webcitation.org/6OaU1bNGm Lewd Lew is a slippery customer.
‘a small number of complaints were received’
What did they expect if there were, let’s say, ‘un-flattering insinuations’ about certain people’s psychological state being put into the public arena? Dressing it up as science doesn’t get you round the law.
Now they complain of bullying – hilarious.
The psychologisarion of dissent has a dark history. Very dark.
Yes, the game is obvious: if you can’t win the argument fairly, claim your opponent is some kind of ‘nutter’ – any kind will do as long as it’s believed by enough people.
This attempt has failed miserably – the desperation is showing 🙂
And more behind-the-scenes trickery to report in this case:
“The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.”
This behavior of Frontiers is the exact opposite of what Rasmussen (Copernicus) did, who rushed in the judgment without properly investigating the issue and discussing it with the editors first.
Was Rasmussen’s hurry caused by threats that he received?
Couldn’t resist having a dig at Lew on his blog post about the retraction:
“Really, Recursive Fury appears to be a prime example of obsessive ideation on the imagined existence of a pernicious stratum of conspiracist ideation which forms the bedrock of the entire climate contrarian blogosphere. It just is not so Stephan and trying to make it appear so will result in one of two outcomes: you will be seen as deliberately vindictive and malicious towards those who dare to question the prevailing narrative, or you will yourself be viewed as something of a fruitcake. It appears that the former has happened, which apparently is why the paper has been retracted. Perhaps it is time to pack up your peculiar brand of psychoanalysis and turn it upon some other band of individuals who are maybe more deserving of dissection beneath your shrink-like lens. Hard-nosed, rational, logic driven sceptics were never going to put up with such unfounded allegations of ‘mental instability’; it amazes me that you would ever think that they would.
As a final aside, it does appear that in your paper you confuse allegations of collusion among scientists and others with accusations of full blown conspiracy. they are quite distinct.”
Jaime: Screenshot it. Lew is infamous for his delete key.
Lew’s blog entry is now wecited here
http://www.webcitation.org/6OaU1bNGm
Reblogged this on ed2ferreira and commented:
a revista Frontiers in Psychology publicou o artigo Fúria Recursiva: Ideação…. do prof Stephan Lewandowsky e, após reações ao artigo, RETIROU (retracted) o artigo, i.e., não admite mais nenhuma responsabilidade por ele, desautorizou-o, considerou-o impublicável, ou algo parecido. Nele Lewandowsky tachava vários blogueiros cientistas nomeadamente apontados, contrários à conspiração aquecimentista, como desequilibrados mentais propensos a verem conspirações em todo lugar(!)…. quem é recursionista furioso?
Well that’s only one piece of Lew paper gone, just check Google Scholar with ‘Stephan Lewandowsky climate’ in the search and see what you get –
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Stephan+Lewandowsky+climate&btnG=Submit&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
Still it’s Bristol University’s problem now.
Rog, thanks. It hasn’t been deleted yet and two morons have responded. Webcite of the current page here: http://www.webcitation.org/6ObSSShvc
Cor, that’s set the Moonbats barking furiously, and no mistake.
Clearly, they don’t like it up ’em!
Things are getting a little confused on that thread methinks. It appears obvious that Frontiers withdrew the paper because they feared being (rightfully) sued and, not (by their own admission at least) on the grounds that it was ethically or academically unsound.
“OK, the retraction statement says:
“Frontiers carried out a detailed investigation of the academic, ethical, and legal aspects of the work. This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study. It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article.”
This quite clearly implies that Frontiers withdrew the paper because of litigation fears, but NOT specifically BECAUSE of threats or ‘bullying’ etc. but because they saw that by continuing to host the paper, they were clearly leaving themselves open to litigation. The mere fact that that they identified litigation as a source of likely loss means therefore that sceptics were probably in a good position to rightfully and legally claim defamation. Recall that they specifically state that there were no ‘threats’ and that they took seriously, it would seem, only those ‘well argued and cogent’ complaints.
Is it not abundantly clear then, to all parties concerned, that Frontiers withdrew Recursive Fury because they recognised the very real possibility that they could be sued for defamation of sceptics, ergo Recursive Fury was defamatory. However much you wish to argue that that, ‘Oh, but yes, it was still ethically and academically sound’, if this WERE TRULY the case then, by definition, any litigation would be likely to fail. Frontiers obviously made the risk assessment that such litigation would NOT be likely to fail, ergo, the ethical and academic merit of the paper is automatically brought into question, even though Frontiers spares the authors such ignominy by not specifically declaring this to be so.”