What then?
Science says it has been cited over 25 times. Science says in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric. Google at January 18, 2024 says it has 5,707 downloads.
Kozlowski, J. / Konarzewski, M. (here, KK) in Funct Ecol , Vol. 18 p. 283-289, Funct Ecol , Vol. 19, p. 739-743, brilliantly, found internal contradictions. The authors of A General model impugned the KK objections: Funct. Ecol. , Vol. 19 p. 735-738.
Will a journal publish an article showing a previously starring article is wrong? Has it happened? If so, can you give examples?
How do editors deal with that kind of situation? What are their considerations and what factors play a role?
On Kleiber's Law are:
Preprint Revisiting 1638's turn from dimension to scaling
Preprint From Galileo’s simple case to universal 4/3 scaling
The 1997 article is on ResearchGate:
Article A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology
On RG it stats are: Research Interest Score 2,340 Citations 4,645 Reads 5,646
This article about the 1997 General Allometric article has been posted in the past day, reviewing the 1997.
No, West, Brown and Enquist’s model of allometric scaling is not correct.
Preprint No, West, Brown and Enquist’s model of allometric scaling is...
Various websites discuss related issues. A couple of examples.
(1) https://mathoverflow.net/questions/31337/how-do-i-fix-someones-published-error
Some advice explicitly directed at less senior people. I would very much advise some who does not yet have tenure to NOT take the nuclear option (e.g. posting a paper on the arXiv accusing someone of being wrong, or writing irate letters to the editors of a journal). In the extremely rare cases in which this has to be done, it is best done by someone who is both pretty senior and very politically skilled.
This leads me to my other piece of advice. Namely, talk to other, more senior people in your research area. First, they might be able to convince you that it isn't really as serious an error as you think. Second, they will probably know the personalities involved better, and be more effective at convincing an author to do the right thing if something has to be done.
(2) https://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2011/10/if-you-find-mistake-in-someone-elses.html
If you offer a suggested correction then MAKE SURE IT IS CORRECT. The author may say Oh, I guess that's a mistake, I better make the correction having thought that you read it carefully. While that may well be the authors responsibility, be very careful. The first rule of proofreading is DO NO HARM.
In general, and without reference to any particular article including the one under discussion, there is a website called, COPE, Committee on Publication Ethics, which is a guide for editors. I was not aware of the group or the website: https://publicationethics.org/ . So it seems, if an editor confronts a problem with a published article, this site offers helpful guidance.
Also, publishers may have their own guidelines For example, Taylor and Francis:
https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/after-publication/corrections-to-published-articles
Articles dealing with WBE errors, in addition to
Kozlowski, J. / Konarzewski, M. Is West, Brown and Enquist's model of allometric scaling mathematically correct and biologically relevant? 2004 Funct Ecol , Vol. 18 p. 283-289
and
Kozlowski, J. / Konarzewski, M. West, Brown and Enquist's model of allometric scaling again: the same questions remain 2005 Funct Ecol , Vol. 19 p. 739-743
include these:
Preprint Allometric and radiation scaling are different
Preprint Scale factors have no role in allometric scaling
Preprint The Galileo General Model of Allometric Scaling
Preprint Galileo I: Principles of differential scaling and of allometry
Preprint Galileo II: Principles of allometry; physiology applications
- Badges
- Science topic