Mod+ Journal pulls plug on paper that predicts person’s death, against authors’ objections

#1
http://retractionwatch.com/2016/11/...cts-persons-death-against-authors-objections/

Delorme says never got a specific reason for the retraction. In the attached letter he mentions above, Ó Faoleán told Delorme and his co-authors:

"We have become aware of serious issues concerning the scientific soundness and methodology of your published article. Following an internal investigation by the journal Chief Editors and senior Frontiers editorial staff, it was determined that the paper does not meet the scientific standards of the journal and will shortly be retracted."

We contacted Ó Faoleán, who told us:

"Concerns were raised about this article post-publication. While a subsequent investigation by the Chief Editors determined that the article should be retracted, the retraction statement serves as our public statement thereof."

We’ve got many questions about this paper and its retraction — namely, if the journal deemed the results to be so problematic, how did it pass peer review and get published in the first place? We’ve contacted the two reviewers listed on the paper, and will update if they respond.
The retracted paper is here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4869106/
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#2
You think the elites would've learned the consequences of rigging the system. ;)

Seriously though will be worth following this - thanks for the note!
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#3
One of the comments on that article is from the first author of the paper:

As the first author of this article, my response is that I believe that this retraction violates the Committee on publication ethics, because no objective reasons were provided for the retraction – section 3.5 of COPE “Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.” Despite our repeated messages to the editor, this opportunity was not given to us. Some responses mention the lack of control group, but this is not the reason why the article was retracted. The methodology of the article was actually not put in question in the retraction statement. Instead, the editors are questioning the conclusions in vague terms. About the control group, this depends on the question you ask. If you want to test if a given group of subject has higher performance than a control group, then a control group is relevant. If you are want to test if people can reach performance higher than 50% performance, then a control group is irrelevant.

Upon being contacted by retraction watch, I declared that I believed this retraction violates the Committee on publication ethics. This opinion is not reflected in this blog piece. A longer more detailed and I believe less bias blog that details all the events leading to this retraction is available at http://noetic.org/about/press/retraction.
Not surprising given all the issues with science as practiced. Hopefully we get some real reasons.
 
#7
K9 - Thanks for posting this controversy. To my humble opinion; Radin et all are measuring a natural phenomena. The measurement outcomes are the measurement outcomes and should not be ignored! They are to be expected in my worldview. I just read a great article that is about how we are using modern technology to mine bio-data for security programs, such as facial recognition.
http://paidpost.nytimes.com/oppenhe...ion=PaidPostMOTH&pgType=Homepage&action=click

Our senses not only help us navigate the world, they’re also crucial instruments that allowed us to become social creatures, form interpersonal bonds, and communicate how it feels to be us. Technologies are now using our innate senses as guideposts to create more sophisticated ways of discovering ourselves and our world, with investment potential in biometric applications flourishing in fields ranging from security to marketing.

It has taken millions of years for evolution to slowly fine-tune the senses our bodies use today. At first, bacteria were generally equipped to respond to only “the chemical milieu and whether they were bumping into something,” according to Paul Fuchs, co-director of the Center for Sensory Biology at Johns Hopkins Medicine. Our modern sensory systems have evolved to encompass millions of nerve, brain and organ cells all working together to transform data from our environments into information the body can use to navigate life and understand other social creatures.
 
Top