A most unusual retraction decision
Though the reasons given for academic retractions are often vague, there is some common sentiment about when an article should be retracted. Academic articles are generally not supposed to be retracted for any reason other than major errors in fact, violation of author agreements (e.g. cooking data, duping participants into consequential experiments without appropriate informed consent), or defamation (e.g. saying knowingly false things about another non-public, non-powerful figure, with malicious intent to harm). Handelsman did none of these things, as the awkward and cryptic justification for the retraction of his article (above) implicitly admits.
Perhaps the most troublesome phrase in the draft retraction is "until the case is resolved." The statement leaves it unclear what "the case" is, and how it might be resolved, and how we would all know when it was resolved.
When I wrote to the editor in July to ask whether the proposed retraction was still in the works, he replied:
After consulting with Mitch Handelsman and scores of legal minds, the retraction is moving forward. However, as noted in the retraction, we have left the door wide open for Mitch to update and publish this piece once the matter is resolved.
In this correspondence, the abstract thing needing resolution before freely publishing teaching guidance on recent history was now "the matter", but it was not any clearer what "the case" or "the matter" is.
I asked for clarification, specifically:
A lot may hinge on the phrase 'once the matter is resolved.' Is it a bit like 'once the war on terror is over' (i.e. never) or 'once climate scientists and fossil fuel industry leaders come to a consensus on whether or not climate change is real and human-influenced' (i.e. never) or is it more like 'once the judge renders a decision at the end of the year'?
I also asked, "If we were to shift the critical attention from SAGE to another party, who would be the appropriate party . . . ?" I received no reply. It was okay, though. My questions on resolving "the matter" were, after all, a bit rhetorical, and I already knew who that other party was from other psychology dissidents who were in the know.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
7
3
3
