Comments on: Another Quandary for Sciencemag http://climateaudit.org/2006/01/04/another-quandary-for-sciencemag/ by Steve McIntyre Sat, 25 May 2013 05:25:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Tony Baloney http://climateaudit.org/2006/01/04/another-quandary-for-sciencemag/#comment-42113 Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:31:58 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=481#comment-42113 Science never retracted the 2005 paper. That has yet to happen. The NYTIMES article describes internal discussion about what the retraction should say, which are ongoing. There has been no re-retraction — the quote from the Science editor refers to her desire to avoid such a re-retraction by proceeding with caution.

]]> By: Mark Frank http://climateaudit.org/2006/01/04/another-quandary-for-sciencemag/#comment-42112 Sun, 08 Jan 2006 14:06:09 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=481#comment-42112 From what was written, I don’t think you can blame Science for getting the retraction wrong. It sounds like they got additional information at the last moment after they had been round all the 25 authors. They have to strike a balance between getting the retraction out as soon as possible and getting in all possible information. We have all been in similar positions. They were unlucky that something additional came up at the last moment – but it doesn’t sound too major.

]]> By: The Knowing One http://climateaudit.org/2006/01/04/another-quandary-for-sciencemag/#comment-42111 Thu, 05 Jan 2006 05:27:38 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=481#comment-42111 Hwang is now claiming that he has the technology to do the stem cell work (Quote: “I can replicate the process any time”). According to him, he is the victim of a conspriacy. See this article in the Korea Herald for details.

Is his lack of touch with reality due to the stress of being exposed, or has it always been there?

]]> By: per http://climateaudit.org/2006/01/04/another-quandary-for-sciencemag/#comment-42110 Wed, 04 Jan 2006 22:29:52 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=481#comment-42110 Just imagine; they get the first paper in, and then they get two more science publications with the retractions as well !
bonzer !
per

]]>