hi Barry -
This is indeed an interesting problem, however I would disagree that
it is "significant" - in fact, this is yet another area where open
access should facilitate fixing problems, rather than creating them.
Picture, for example, the print subscription journal, and trying to
make sure that anyone who has a copy (or made a photocopy) is
appropriately notified that the paper has been retracted.
Then picture a good search by title or author for all open access
copies of an article. It should be obvious that these will be much
easier to track down than either paper copies, or toll-access
electronic copies.
As for copies in institutional repositories, it seems rather obvious
that the authors whose permission was sought to retract the document
would take responsibility for notifying their institutional
repository. Just in case someone misses this step - all that is
needed to double-check is an OAIster or google search.
Many thanks for bringing forth yet another open access opportunity -
which at first glance appeared to be a "problem".
Heather Morrison
On 6-Jan-06, at 10:47 AM, Barry Mahon wrote:
> Dear Stevan,
>
> I hope you will consider putting this on the list. I think it
> raises a significant potential problem. If a paper is withdrawn
> following further review, as this one has been, and it is already
> on an institutional or other server (as a peer reviewed paper...)
> then who is responsible for withdrawing it, or is there any
> obligation to withdraw? In general terms is there any mechanism in
> place to 'manage' papers which have been withdrawn (for whatever
> reason) but are posted in multiple locations?
>
> From The Registry - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/05/
> science_retraction/
>
>>> The journal Science yesterday announced it would take the highly
>>> unusual step of retracting a paper written by disgraced stem cell
>>> researcher Hwang Woo-suk and colleagues as the scandal
>>> surrounding Hwang's suspect study on tailored embryonic stem
>>> cells refuses to lie down.
>
> According to Reuters, Science has got permission from everyone
> named on the May 2005 paper to retract the document. The journal
> said in a statement: "To ensure that the wording of the retraction
> reflects the final conclusions of the Seoul National University
> (SNU) investigation, Science will finalize the retraction text and
> proceed with the final steps of the retraction process only after
> the SNU investigation is completed next week.
>
> "Science hopes this approach will yield a retraction that will
> convey accurately as much information as possible to the scientific
> community."<<
>
>
> BTW in a recent issue of Le Monde a distnguished French researcher
> (and personal friend of Hwang)commented on the limitations of the
> peer review process vis a vis situations such as the failure of the
> Hwang material - he made the point that, in areas such as stem cell
> work, peer review can only be 'good' if the reviewer re-did the
> work....
>
> Bye, Barry
Received on Fri Jan 06 2006 - 22:47:24 GMT