First twitter was not where this began. Concerns were raised with me as @ASNAmNat EIC on Nov 19. @KateLaskowski first broke this on twitter (with my encouragement) on Jan 17. Because we wanted plenty of time to evaluate the data, discuss with @Agelenopsis & formulate a statement
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
We followed Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines in handling the retraction internally, not publicizing it until it was complete, and contacted the concerned universities in advance of retraction.
Prikaži ovu nit -
So why tweet it? This is a part of the scientific record that people cited, and they should be made aware that it should not be cited further.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Simply posting a retraction linked to the journal version of the paper is not likely to be visible enough to correct the record in the collective consciousness, because most of us don't check journal copies of papers we read in the past, remember, or have copies of
Prikaži ovu nit -
Hence the initial tweet of the first retraction, to advertise that this paper should be not be used further.
Prikaži ovu nit -
But.... although we knew of two additional retractions at the time of
@KateLaskowski 's first tweet, we did not tweet about those because they were still going though due process at their journals, abiding by the journals' request for silence on those pending retractions.Prikaži ovu nit -
I confess it was challenging to stay silent during the first round of response, which was uniformly supportive of all involved, sympathetic to their error, while knowing that additional retractions involving Pruitt-provided data were en route. ...
Prikaži ovu nit -
I worried about how the 'good-on-you' back-patting sympathy would play out when more retractions came to light.
Prikaži ovu nit -
So when the next retraction was official,
@KateLaskowski@ambikamath@NoaPinter and others again did the right thing by publicizing that there was a flawed paper that was retracted and should not be used further.Prikaži ovu nit -
Understandably, once there were two (and more pending) retractions, the community took real notice and became concerned. If two, are there more? How deep does this go? This is where the twitter mob has the potential to take up arms...
Prikaži ovu nit -
But I am very proud to say that the research community has been almost 100% well-behaved and respectful, while still demanding accountability and explanation and correction, all reasonable expectations. I am pleased to be a part of a community with you all. Thank you.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Yes, there have been some snide remarks, some jokes cracked, and some anger expressed, but the vast majority of the response has been impressive: seeking clarification, information, and concern for Pruitt's collaborators (especially ECS) and for
@Agelenopsis himselfPrikaži ovu nit -
So, to tweet or not to tweet? On balance, twitter I think was a crucial tool to: (1) disseminate news that at least some papers are not to be used further, (2) recruit help examining the remaining >150 papers to hopefully give many of them a clean bill of health, and ....
Prikaži ovu nit -
Most importantly to lend moral support and encouragement to the ECS and colleagues who are directly impacted by the cloud of mistrust that was inevitably going to settle over all papers with Pruitt's name on them once retraction #2&3 were public, and maybe clear that cloud
Prikaži ovu nit -
So, in all this thanks again for being respectful, inquisitive, rigorous, fair, and patient (investigating this matter took
@ASNAmNat two months).Prikaži ovu nit -
Now, I am going to try to stick to my "no twitter" promise to myself this weekend, I am going to go have fun, relax, edit a grant, prep for class Monday, and read excellent
@ASNAmNat student papers to restore my faith in science.Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.