[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: [dinosaur] Nomenclatural consequences of Oculudentavis khaungraae case (free pdf)
I am very glad to see this publication, and I entirely agree with the authorâs condemnation of the practice of retraction as inimical to science.
Now, can Nature âun-retractâ the original publication (and promise never to do it again)?
Ronald Orenstein 1825 Shady Creek Court Mississauga, ON L5L 3W2 Canada ronorenstein.blogspot.com
On Aug 22, 2020, 10:53 AM -0400, Ben Creisler <email@example.com>, wrote:
A new paper with free pdf:
The recent publication in the journal Nature of a paper describing a new fossil as a 'hummingbird-sized dinosaur', followed immediately by a rebuttal stating that it was in fact a lizard, and then by the 'retraction' of the original paper, raised concerns about the nomenclatural availability of the new binomen Oculudentavis khaungraae that it introduced. It is shown here that so-called 'retraction', by authors, editors or publishers, of a controversial paper, has no bearing under the Rules of the Code on the nomenclatural availability of the paper and of the new nomina or nomenclatural acts it may contain, which can be withdrawn only by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature acting under its Plenary Power. It is furthermore argued that the principle of 'retraction of scientific publications itself is anti-scientific, harmful to the history of science, and belongs in the domain of 'denialism': it should be fully abandoned by serious scientific journals.