A recent paper in PLOS ONE study made reference to a 'CREATOR', and about the overall rationale and findings of the study. Eventually the paper was retracted. While I am sympathetic to the authors of the study using the language (Chinese authors), I couldn't understand how come the reviewers didn't pick up such issue with the manuscript?
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146193
I agree that it is a mystery.
I have many friends who are Chinese native speakers and I know how they struggle with English/American idioms, so I am sympathetic to the claim that they did not understand the meaning of what they wrote. Substituting "nature" for "creator" would have solved the problem (assuming that there are no other flaws in the paper, which is not in my area of expertise),
I presume that 2-3 reviewers saw this paper. Somebody should have raised the question.
Yes, that was my feeling as well. The problem was that, you can see the word 'creator' mentioned even in the abstract. Even if the handling editor or the reviewers didn't read the entire manuscript clearly (which they should), but how come they missed out the word in the abstract. My sympathy goes to the authors. Even if they intend to make the claim, the handling editors and the reviewers should have pointed out their views so that the authors would have a chance to correct their language.
I agree with the previous comments from both colleagues.
"Nature" and "Creator" have probable the same meaning for Chinese authors and the reviewers's criteria shoud be more flexible.
My solidarity to those authors.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts