Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Also pone.0040808 must be retracted to underline that PLOS never shows partial behaviour.

Posted by Klaas_van_Dijk on 05 Mar 2016 at 12:35 GMT

I would like to congratulate publisher PLOS with their quick action to retract this paper.

I would like to advise the authors of this manuscript to take note of all comments of all peers on the scientific level of their manuscript. (There are also comments on various other blogs). I also would like to advise the authors to re-submit to PLOS ONE an improved version of their manuscipt. I am sure that there are many peers who are willing to help them with improving both the scientific level and the level of English of their manuscript.

Publisher PLOS has stated that the prepublication processes for internal quality controls and the peer review both failed. PLOS also states that the Academic Editor has been asked to step down. I therefore propose to PLOS to give the authors a full waiver for the APCs when their new manuscript will pass the peer review.

I have noted that some commenters are concerned that this quick action of publisher PLOS is an indication that publisher PLOS shows partial behaviour. Such a behaviour is of course not allowed for a mainstream publisher.

I am therefore urging publisher PLOS to retract immediately

The authors and their affiliations of this paper refuse to release to professor James Coyne (University of Groningen, The Netherlands) the entire set of primary research data. Such a refusal is a clear violation of the rules for papers which are published in PLOS ONE.

I have contacted publisher PLOS about this issue on 12 December 2015. I have suggested to retract this paper if professor Coyne has not received full access to all raw research data within one month.

We are right now 5 March 2016. Professor Coyne, and other interested readers, have not yet received full access to all raw research data. The authors and their affiliations are still unwilling to provide professor James Coyne, and other readers, unrestricted access to all raw research data.

So there is no way out. pone.0040808 must also be retracted, and immediately. This quick action of publisher PLOS will underline that the concerned commenters have no grounds to assume that publisher PLOS shows impartial behaviour when it comes to retract papers from the journal PLOS ONE.

No competing interests declared.