4 ms·
tl;dr: No. Elaborating slightly: A paper that is related to (but does not directly argue for) an "uncomfortable truth" was published, then unpublished 3 days l
by eridius 8y ago
tl;dr: No.
Elaborating slightly: A paper that is related to (but does not directly argue for) an "uncomfortable truth" was published, then unpublished 3 days later and replaced with a different paper. The author of this blog piece tracked down the paper and read it, and it turns out to simply be a bad paper that shouldn't have been published to begin with.
- ziggurism 8y agoBeing a bad paper, even a "never should have been published", is not sufficient reason for retroactively un-publishing a refereed and published paper. A rebuttal or at worst retraction is the appropriate action in that case.
- tptacek 8y agoThere's apparently a conflict between the editor who essentially snuck the paper into NYJM and the rest of the editorial board, and it occurred some time ago, during a time where the leadership of the journal was changed for other reasons. It's worth paying close attention to the dates in Ted Hill's retelling of the story, and matching them up with his submissions and other events. Long story short: you're probably right, it probably wasn't handled correctly, but there are mitigating circumstances.
- DanBC 8y agoWas it refereed?
- tptacek 8y agoNo, I don't believe so.