> Your characterization of Science "standing by what they printed no matter what" is a gross distortion of the facts here, as Science has done no such thing.
I have to disagree; I think jacquesm has the comment closest to the truth.
My comment is a minor distortion of the facts -- later in the article we get this:
> Science tweeted that it was assessing the retraction request and would in the meantime publish “an Editorial Expression of Concern.”
Here's the thing. Science isn't doing any research itself. Once a paper's author has admitted the data was faked, there is no role for Science to play; they can't look into the past and determine that it was actually real. They've acknowledged receipt of the message, and they're willing to print a notice that the paper is a lie -- but they don't want to retract it, because that would damage their record.
> The world isn't going to end because Science hasn't yet made a decision on May 21 about something sent to them on May 19.
They have made a decision. They're going to print an unofficial warning. Without more pressure from the public, they will not print a retraction.
Remember, Green is the primary author. He contacted them; for them to contact him is somewhat superfluous.
Green is not the primary author. Lacour is the primary author. Green is the older, more established, secondary author; he's supposed to be playing a sort of mentor role to the primary author. He has sent a letter outlining his concerns about the paper, but he didn't do the work himself in the first place.
Lacour has not indicated he supports the retraction request and it is extremely reasonable for Science to contact him about it and hear what he has to say before proceeding.
Yes, committing to print a warning letter is a decision. The claim I responded to, "Science hasn't yet made a decision on May 21 about something sent to them on May 19", is clearly false. They have made one. They've purposely deferred a different (though closely related) one. Why? What do you think could conceivably come to light that would make the Expression of Concern appropriate, but a retraction by Science inappropriate?
Groups tend not to move as quickly as individuals because groups require discussion. Science probably will retract it, but they need to discuss it first, and they likely have protocols that they follow.
I have to disagree; I think jacquesm has the comment closest to the truth.
My comment is a minor distortion of the facts -- later in the article we get this:
> Science tweeted that it was assessing the retraction request and would in the meantime publish “an Editorial Expression of Concern.”
Here's the thing. Science isn't doing any research itself. Once a paper's author has admitted the data was faked, there is no role for Science to play; they can't look into the past and determine that it was actually real. They've acknowledged receipt of the message, and they're willing to print a notice that the paper is a lie -- but they don't want to retract it, because that would damage their record.
> The world isn't going to end because Science hasn't yet made a decision on May 21 about something sent to them on May 19.
They have made a decision. They're going to print an unofficial warning. Without more pressure from the public, they will not print a retraction.
Remember, Green is the primary author. He contacted them; for them to contact him is somewhat superfluous.