Yesterday , John Bohannon reported on his deeply ( and by choice ) blemished study claiming chocolate accelerates weight passing . Today , we have a fresh twist : The editor program of the journal that published his newspaper claims they never really published it in the first position , despite e-mail to Bohannon to the contrary .
https://gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800
One of the most democratic questions about Bohannon ’s long gyp on the weaknesses of peer recapitulation in successfully filtering for timbre scientific inquiry and on the dangers of press - exit science journalism is whether the theme would be draw back now that it ’s been publicly acknowledged by its jumper cable author as inherently flawed skill .
Retraction Watch covers in detail why a recantation was always going to be unlikelysince Bohannon technically pursue the rules — but then things read a foreign turn . Carlos Vázquez , CEO and editor for iMed.pub , the umbrella organization of theInternational Archives of Medicine , madea public statement on the daybook ’s Facebook group , claiming they never really meant to publish the controversial study in the first position :
Disclaimer : workweek ago a manuscript that was being retrospect in the journal “ Chocolate with High Cocoa Content as a Weight - Loss Accelerator ” appeared as issue by error . Indeed that manuscript was finally rejected , although it go online for some hours .
We are regretful for the incommodiousness . We are call for measures to avoid this kind of mistakes happen again .
Yet , Bohannon provided Retraction Watch with copies of his emails with Vázquez in which the paper was explicitly accepted :
I ’m get hold of to let you know your manuscript “ Chocolate with High Cocoa Content as a Weight - Loss Accelerator ” has been pointed by our editor as an great manuscript and could be accepted directly in our premier journal * International Archives of Medicine . *
The email thread continues into details on the publishing timeline and review proofs before issue , with Vázquez writing , “ [ Y]ou will receive the proof in few days , so your clause will be probably published next hebdomad . ” They pull in publication fee and the paper was on-line : we ’re entrust wondering what on the nose “ publication ” imply if this was a rejection . But now , the paper has been pull from the International Archives of Medicine website .
While the debate about whether science journalism should cross over protagonism through this form of disruption continues , now we have a newfangled wrinkle : How should a daybook respond to a trouble like this ? Flawed research happen all the fourth dimension — peer review is notoriously uncertainand even accused of beingno better than random chance , whileentertainingfakepapersmake the news every month . Is pulling a paper with the ex post facto title that it had always been rejected more or less trustworthy than just issuing a retraction ?
Update : You canread the whole newspaper here .
Image credit : weegeebored
ChocolateDietsHealth
Daily Newsletter
Get the dependable tech , science , and cultivation news in your inbox day by day .
News from the future , deliver to your present tense .
You May Also Like
