Comments on: Retraction by reason of insanity? A look at a 60-year-old entomology paper

By: Matan(author)

Matan(author) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 04:37:44 +0000

Unfortunately, a few people do take the paper seriously. One example is, of course, Altschuler et al., who cited the paper as “proof” that unidentifiable arthropods can infest people. Patients with DP will also take the Traver paper seriously; while they would never accept a retraction due to their condition, they may succeed in using the paper to convince an uninformed doctor or entomologist or family member that they are not crazy. A retraction will help people without DP and without background knowledge of DP separate reality from delusion, even if the patients or family members they deal with cannot.

By: Joanne

Joanne — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 22:51:46 +0000

The mentally ill have been making unsubstantiated scientific claims since the beginning of time, but not many get a peer reviewed audience. Political correctness (not discriminating against the mentally ill) doesn’t seem like a legitimate reason to maintain a false paper. That being said, Conrad’s comment and nico’s follow-up certainly shows that the delusion shines through and thus the paper is not taken seriously except as an example of delusions parasitiosis.

I’ll see you at #scio12, Ivan!

By: nico

nico — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:15:55 +0000

Paper can be found there : http://www.birdmites.org/resources/1951.pdf
It has been cited 24 times according to Google Scholar, mostly in the topic of “delusions parasitosis”

By: conradseitz

conradseitz — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:28:07 +0000

As a doctor, it would be hard for me to take the Traver paper seriously and cite it, other than as an example of delusional parasitosis. I hope scientists in other fields would see the same. Do we know how many times it has been cited? The paper about springtails is another story. A manipulated photograph is certainly grounds for retraction and might not be noticed by readers. I sincerely hope that, before you cite an article, you read it and evaluate its conclusions carefully. On the other hand, the Traver paper should be retracted no matter how old it is. It’s not science, it’s delusional–therefore, an error.

By: Rafa

Rafa — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:48:23 +0000

IN Zoology we often cite papers because of information which is over 90 years old. Of course if its false, it has to be announced before the hoax keep growing. Nature did not essentially change much since the dawn of science, and in many fields methods of observation have remained the same as well.

By: CF

CF — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:31:00 +0000

I understand pm’s position, but the consequences of just accepting old papers as they are could be severe were this material to be consulted. In my research, I have actively searched for published scientific work that dates back several decades. Most of what I found still makes a whole lot of sense. In case it does not, this should be made public. The aim is not to discredit but, more importantly, to re-evaluate. The historical value of those observations remains intact but the truthfulness of the report should be amended.

By: V

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:45:07 +0000

From an ethical standpoint, this is fascinating. However, I’m not sure whether it makes any sense to retract papers that are 60 years old. How far back will we go to retract papers? 100 years? 200 years? I am sure that a lot of papers that are 200 years old wouldn’t make sense nowadays.

I think that there must be some time interval after which papers are part of the historical record, as much as the scientific record. If papers were accepted by scientists of the era for >50 years, maybe they should be left alone, even if we wouldn’t accept them today.

And, there are more than enough problems with modern papers; there is no need to dig through records from 60 years ago to clean them up!