“PLOS One has retracted a [peer review scientific] paper published one month ago after readers began criticizing it for mentioning ‘the Creator.’ Retractionwatch.com, March 3, 2016
“’We will change the Creator to nature in the revised manuscript.’” Ibid
“The paper, titled ‘Biomechanical Characteristics of Hand Coordination in Grasping Activities of Daily Living’ was written by a team of four researchers, three from Huazhong University in China, and one from Worchester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts.” U.K. Independent, March 4, 2016
Editor’s Note: One clever reader observed that we must be in dangerous territory when “four commies declare their faith in God.”
“Some of the greatest scientific minds that ever lived believed in a Divine Creator…Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627), Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Robert Boyle (1791-1867), Michael Faraday (1791-1867), Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907), Max Planck (1858-1947), Albert Einstein (1879-1955)…” Compton, U.K. Independent, March 4, 2016
Doug Bolton, Independent.co.uk, March 4, 2016
Naturally, the multiple references to intelligent design in a reputable journal like PLOS ONE have stoked anger in the scientific community, and many people, including researchers who work as editors for the publication, are now calling for it to be retracted.
Commenting below the study, the journal’s staff apologised that the language referring to a ‘Creator’ was not addressed during the paper’s evaluation.
They also said they were “looking into” the concerns raised, and would “take steps” to correct the published article.
Update: The journal has now announced the paper will be retracted.
Commenting on the website, it wrote: “The PLOS ONE editors have followed up on the concerns raised about this publication. We have completed an evaluation of the history of the submission and received advice from two experts in our editorial board. Our internal review and the advice we have received have confirmed the concerns about the article and revealed that the peer review process did not adequately evaluate several aspects of the work.”
“In light of the concerns identified, the PLOS ONE editors have decided to retract the article, the retraction is being processed and will be posted as soon as possible. We apologize for the errors and oversight leading to the publication of this paper.”