Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Further information would be useful

Posted by Protohedgehog on 03 Mar 2016 at 20:13 GMT

Thanks for the updated comments on this. Swift action is appreciated.

I think the research community and broader public could do with an extra couple of things regarding this issue though.

Firstly, the peer review history should be made openly available upon retraction so that we can publicly evaluate why this issue occurred in the first place.

Secondly, I think we need reassurances that this issue is not due to a systemic issue within PLOS ONE's editorial process, and that an investigation is being undertaken as to whether it was or not. Following this, amendments to this process should be made as to ensure that mistakes like this do not happen again with PLOS ONE. While retraction is a natural and sometimes unfortunate part of the research process, I think PLOS ONE need to openly demonstrate that they are doing everything possible to limit these sorts of problems from occurring.

Competing interests declared: I'm a previous author at PLOS ONE, and a PLOS Paleo Community Editor.
report a concern respond to this posting

RE: Further information would be useful

paleosp replied to Protohedgehog on 03 Mar 2016 at 20:21 GMT

agree... but even with these suggested steps followed, the reputation of the journal is dammaged... I will not consider it for publication.

Competing interests declared: I am a concerned paleontologist who do not agree with the practice of paying to publish the results of my work.
report a concern respond to this posting