3 ms·
In general they don't have a right to demand it. However, in this case it is a direct refutation of a previous article that the journal published. At the very l
by dwheeler 7y ago
In general they don't have a right to demand it. However, in this case it is a direct refutation of a previous article that the journal published. At the very least their refutation deserves to be evaluated by a peer review process and considered for publication. In fact, I will go further, if a paper directly refutes older work in a journal, then that journal probably DOES have an obligation to publish it as long as it is done at least as well as the original.
The claim that the field has moved on is complete garbage and nonsense. It is farcical on its face. The older work is still being quoted.
- bjourne 7y agoMaybe you are right, but Science isn't an outlier here. All journals are loathe to publish direct refutations of previously published articles. Conference papers are even worse in that regard - zero room for refutations. "The field has moved on" is probably, second to "The article contains factual errors" the most common reason for article rejections. This problem is not limited to Psychology either. It is just as prevalent, if not more so, in Computer Science.