Skip to content

Southern Fried Science

Over 15 years of ocean science and conservation online

  • Home
  • About SFS
  • Authors
  • Support SFS

This Paper Should Not Have Been Retracted: #HandofGod highlights the worst aspects of science twitter

Posted on March 5, 2016March 5, 2016 By Andrew Thaler 6 Comments on This Paper Should Not Have Been Retracted: #HandofGod highlights the worst aspects of science twitter
Academic life

I really didn’t want to care about this paper, at all.

When news broke Wednesday afternoon that a paper in PLOS One referenced the “Creator” in the abstract, introduction, and discussion, I took a look, read through the methodology and results, asked a few colleagues in that field if there were any methodological problems that would indicate that the actual science was unsound, and concluded it was… fine. Not phenomenal, earth-shattering, or paradigm shifting, but methodologically sound.

Incidentally, publishing based on the soundness of the methodology rather than the ground-breakingness of the research, is one of PLOS ONE’s mandates.

But the paper was awkwardly framed around a few phrases referencing the role of the Creator. This framework didn’t bleed into the methods or results but it was there, and the scientific community noticed. I noted, under the assumption that the authors were inserting creationist language into their paper, that there are numerous papers that try to hang their studies on tenuous frameworks and draw not entirely supportable conclusions, and not just in PLOS. Then I chatted with a few colleagues about it and called it a day.

Here’s the weird thing about Twitter: sometimes even your apathy is newsworthy.

So that tweet made a bunch of news sites and I started getting bombarded with questions, comments, and pffiffle*. Which meant now I didn’t have the choice not to care.

The online conversations were myriad. The skeptic community, finely attuned to even a whiff of creationism in the literature, went… well, a little berserk. Some of the most septic skeptics decided to join the fray. In short order the paper was re-reviewed and retracted.

Here’s the thing: It shouldn’t have been.

Passing peer-review does not mean a paper is perfect. Passing peer-review means that the study being reported is scientifically sound. It would be amazing if everything else about a paper–the authors’ underlying motivations in the introduction, how the authors’ choose to render their interpretation in the discussion, and the choice of words and idioms–also corresponded to the scientific consensus. But they don’t. At worst, a poorly argued introduction or discussion deserves a rewrite, but rare is the paper that should be rejected outright whose methods and results are sound while the introduction and conclusion are a bit of a stretch.

As it turns out, even that is not the case here.

The authors responded to PLOS’s decision and revealed that, far from an attempt to insert creationism into the scientific literature, their references to a Creator were simply the result of translating a Chinese idiom into English, and that, in a more literal sense, the idiom meant “nature as guided by natural processes like selection”. In that light, I’m in 100% agreement with Dr24Hours: The “Creator” paper, Post-pub Peer Review, and Racism Among Scientists.

You could argue that a reviewer should have caught this and fixed it. Sure. But perhaps the peer-reviewers (who are anonymous) were also Chinese and the language choice raised no red flag. Perhaps in that case the editor should have caught it. But editors, often overworked and underpaid (if paid at all) rely on reviewers, and sometimes language errors happen. Instead, a quirk of translation was discovered in post-publication peer-review, which is as much a part of the scientific process as peer-review. But rather than a resounding ‘huh? that’s a funny way to phrase it’, we went ballistic and the paper was retracted.

Retractions have huge consequences for scientific careers, and could destroy a young researcher.

Typos and mistranslations that do not undermine the fundamental soundness of a scientific study do not warrant retraction.


*pffiffle: the generic tweets that aren’t necessarily trolling but are just unbelievably annoying, uniformed, or irrelevant.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

Related

Tags: peer review

Post navigation

❮ Previous Post: A year of 3D printing in the home: does it live up to the hype?
Next Post: Singing Science: Weather vs. Climate with lyrics for teachers ❯

You may also like

Blogging
How to write and publish a scientific paper in the field of marine ecology and conservation
March 6, 2015
Weekly Salvage
Frisky Anglerfish, Persistent Aquatic Living Sensors, Make for the Planet Borneo, Sea Cucumber Mafia, and more! Monday Morning Salvage: March 26, 2018
March 26, 2018
Academic life
How I prepare a peer review
February 11, 2016
Uncategorized
Scientific literature needs discipline – an example from a killer whale life expectancy study
August 23, 2016

6 thoughts on “This Paper Should Not Have Been Retracted: #HandofGod highlights the worst aspects of science twitter”

  1. dr24hours says:
    March 5, 2016 at 3:49 pm

    Thank you for your commentary. I agree and there is now a parade of chinese-speaking commentators on my post explaining the translation issue.

  2. Rosie Redfield says:
    March 5, 2016 at 4:31 pm

    There’s an interesting discussion on Language Log: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=24360#more-24360

  3. J Collins says:
    March 5, 2016 at 5:47 pm

    The trouble is, anyone reading this paper in the future who isn’t familiar with the translation issue is very likely to jump to the same conclusion that most did, which isn’t exactly going to do the authors any favors either. As the paper was accepted then at the very least they should allow the authors to resubmit for publication with minor corrections to clarify the writing.

  4. Andrew David Thaler says:
    March 5, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    PLOS ONE has a mechanism in place to issue an erratum. Simple. No retraction needed.

  5. Lisa Feldkamp says:
    March 9, 2016 at 11:12 am

    Thank you for explaining this so clearly. An erratum does seem like the best way to deal with a poor choice of words by someone writing in a second language.

  6. Kevin Bonham says:
    March 9, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    I wonder if people would be so up in arms (and demanding of retraction) if people didn’t view peer review as a stamp of “correctness” and instead viewed it as the fallible filter for obvious mistakes that most scientists realize it is.

Comments are closed.

Recent Popular Posts

David Attenborough's Ocean is on Hulu and Disney+. Let's watch together and discuss it!David Attenborough's Ocean is on Hulu and Disney+. Let's watch together and discuss it!June 16, 2025David Shiffman
Marine Biology Career AdviceMarine Biology Career AdviceMay 30, 2025David Shiffman
The story of the pride flag made from NASA imagery: Bluesky's most-liked imageThe story of the pride flag made from NASA imagery: Bluesky's most-liked imageSeptember 27, 2024David Shiffman
Shark of Darkness: Wrath of Submarine is a fake documentaryShark of Darkness: Wrath of Submarine is a fake documentaryAugust 10, 2014Michelle Jewell
How many nuclear weapons are at the bottom of the sea. An (almost certainly incomplete) census of broken arrows over water.How many nuclear weapons are at the bottom of the sea. An (almost certainly incomplete) census of broken arrows over water.July 26, 2018Andrew Thaler
Here's what I teach my students about finding jobs in marine biology and conservationHere's what I teach my students about finding jobs in marine biology and conservationApril 10, 2024David Shiffman
What is a Sand Shark?What is a Sand Shark?November 12, 2017Chuck Bangley
Our favorite sea monsters – Ningen (#4)Our favorite sea monsters – Ningen (#4)September 7, 2010Andrew Thaler
Megalodon: the New Evidence is a fake documentaryMegalodon: the New Evidence is a fake documentaryAugust 7, 2014David Shiffman
What can the funniest shark memes on the internetz teach us about ocean science and conservation?What can the funniest shark memes on the internetz teach us about ocean science and conservation?November 8, 2013David Shiffman
Subscribe to our RSS Feed for updates whenever new articles are published.

We recommend Feedly for RSS management. It's like Google Reader, except it still exists.

Southern Fried Science

  • Home
  • About SFS
  • Authors
  • Support SFS


If you enjoy Southern Fried Science, consider contributing to our Patreon campaign.

Copyright © 2025 Southern Fried Science.

Theme: Oceanly Premium by ScriptsTown