Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeNotice from PLOS staff
Posted by PLOS_ONE_Group on 26 Nov 2014 at 17:09 GMT
The PLOS ONE Editors wish to make readers aware that Dr Stellacci has submitted a Formal Comment in response to this article, the Formal Comment is under consideration and will be linked to this article if published.
Both the article by Stirling et al. and the Formal Comment include images that originate from previously published reports. It is necessary for submissions to PLOS ONE to ensure that all content is compatible with the CC-BY license under which the journal publishes. Due to an oversight, the need to clarify permissions for the figures in the article by Stirling et al. was only identified after review, while the Formal Comment underwent the journal’s standard checks in this respect upon submission. Due to the need to address the permission for the images in each paper, it was not possible to coordinate the timing of the evaluation of the Formal Comment with the publication of the article.
RE: Notice from PLOS staff
raphavisses replied to PLOS_ONE_Group on 26 Nov 2014 at 23:06 GMT
I post the comment below on behalf of Prof Moriarty (due to technical difficulties in setting his PloS One account).
****
Thank you for the update on the publication of the Formal Comment by Prof. Stellacci. We look forward to responding to this. Will we have the opportunity to (non-anonymously) review Prof. Stellacci's Comment during the refereeing process? As you know, Prof. Stellacci was afforded the opportunity to review our paper.
In addition, according to my e-mail records, the statement you make regarding the "timeline" associated with processing our paper is not quite right. PLOS ONE first told us, before the refereeing process, that our paper would not be delayed by the requirement for a Formal Comment from Prof. Stellacci to be published in parallel. This is entirely in line with the statement of PLOS ONE's procedures for handling papers disputing previously published work, see http://www.plosone.org/st.... There is no mention there of the simultaneous publication of a response.
Then, following acceptance of our paper, the goalposts were moved and you told us - despite the previous reassurances -- that you were going to delay publication of our paper until the Formal Comment could be reviewed and published in parallel. After a number of e-mail exchanges, however, PLOS ONE agreed to put the goalposts back where they were in the first place and not to delay publication of our paper.
It was only subsequent to this that we were told of the problem with the CC-BY licensing. Your statement that "Due to the need to address the permission for the images in each paper, it was not possible to coordinate the timing of the evaluation of the Formal Comment with the publication of the article" would therefore appear to be rather misleading and is certainly not in line with the trail of messages in my e-mail archive. I am very happy to forward the relevant e-mails if necessary.