The Journal of Neuroscience needs to explain the author ban

I agree with the following Twitter comment

Insofar as it calls for the Editorial Board of the Journal of Neuroscience to explain why it banned three authors from future submissions. As I said on the prior post, this step is unusual and seems on the face of it to be extreme.

I also said I could see justification for the decision to retract the paper. I say that also could stand some explanation, given the public defense and local University review decision.

5 responses so far

  • AcademicLurker says:

    In terms of lawsuit vulnerability, there might be a significant distinction between publicly saying "We don't trust these jerks" (which is basically what JN is doing), and publicly saying "We don't trust these jerks because we've concluded that they did this specific unethical thing".

  • drugmonkey says:

    I think they are going to be in trouble next time there is a "mistaken figure" if they allow a correction and don't retract.

  • lurker says:

    Judging by the photo and pubs going back to 30yrs ago, maybe these two deserve an "Emeritus Award" as consolation for being banned by JNeurosci.

  • mytchondria says:

    You're hilarious Ted. I will put that on the list of things that won't fuckken happen along with
    Nature Editor Henry Gee apologizing to women, Isis, and humanity using his actual name (which he used to out and menace people) instead of his personal pseud account coupled with Nature printing said apology. Then, you know, throw in a nice demotion for his douchenuttery.
    After that, CSHL will disavow Watson, send him out of his campus supported McMansion to populate his own home w his art.
    Maybe next some will have a nice come to Jesus with Bora convincing him to stop claiming that he 'was just joking' about harassing women. He'll make a statement that while he might have been joking in his mind, what his intent was, or what was happening in his mind is not important. Anyone who wields power sets the tone. And it was a shitty tone to have in a professional environment.
    After that, someone will tell Obama that he doesn't get to throw out 'science and technology' as a priority in every state of the union address and not get some skin in the research game taking on NIH budget busting Congress because having an educated populous is better than having an ignorant one
    And THEN we will get the SfN to admit that Trojanowski and Lee were just too damn nasty. The SfN leadership is honorific as it stand guys...we aren't electing leaders. We're electing BSDs as a reward for all the money, training and research they have done. They will just sit back quietly, like all editorial boards do. But I'll bet you a case of red wine Trojanowski and Lee are pissing bees at the moment and will be very vocal on their side of events.

  • rxnm says:

    seriously wtf though. You can have a wholesale faked paper and only the only person who goes down is a "postdoc who no longer lives in the United States and could not be reached for comment." Almost *never* consequences for PIs, especially BSDs like these.

    So to go from that cultural norm to banning PIs when no one has even made a claim of fraud seems extreme in the...er...extreme.

Leave a Reply