Michael Smith opined: > Does this display a weakness of on-line journals?
I think not. I believe that _Proteomics_, although certainly not one of the journals I'm most familiar with, is not online-only, but a mainstream (Wiley Interscience) print edition journal, which is also available on- line. It just happens that they publish some of their work on-line in advance of the print edition, as a number of journals do. In this case, it allowed them to yank it with ease. And David Epstein went: > I hereby offer a million zillion dollars to anyone who can find me a > copy of the full text. It's been yanked from the journal's website, > and I don't see it archived anywhere on the Web. And it seems like > such a KEEPER! Just my luck. I could really use a million zillion dollars, and I could have had it. I came across this scandal before retraction but only decided to post about it after I came across the second example of less- than-sterling reviewing. By then this one had been snatched back. I had accessed the paper in full-text but decided it wasn't worth downloading. All I can say is that it was complicated, and not really very interesting. But note that it was retracted because of plagiarism and not because of God. David: Why not try writing to the authors? Their addresses are given on the retraction. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
