The strange saga of a paper about the public behavior of some of the people who argue about climate science got stranger still over the weekend. The paper, slated for publication in the journal Frontiers in Psychology, was hung up in limbo for several years before finally being pulled from the journal's website entirely. At the time, the journal posted a statement saying that the reason for its vanishing was that "the legal context is insufficiently clear," and the journal's lawyer told Ars that there were no ethical concerns regarding the study.

Roughly two weeks later, the journal apparently no longer feels that's the case. Last Friday, it released a statement that said the paper was pulled because it "does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects" and that attempts to get the authors to submit a modified version that addresses the complaints have been unsuccessful. One of the authors, meanwhile, has professed confusion about the entire situation and says that an anonymized version had been submitted.

Ironically, the entire muddled and bewildering situation grew out of a paper on conspiracy theories and the blog communities who love them. Apparently, a small subset of the people who frequent climate blogs are prone to believing conspiracy theories, both generally and about climate scientists in particular (The paper's title was "NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, [Climate] Science Is a Hoax"). The paper spurred a rather aggressive response on the blogs of the so-called "climate skeptic" community, one that—you guessed it—included a number of conspiracy theories. Which, naturally, some of the same authors chose to write up in another study, this one entitled "Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation."

"Recursive fury" was accepted for publication at Frontiers in Psychology. As early copies became available, it became clear that the authors weren't just examining anonymous blog commenters; they were mentioning specific writers at these blogs by name. This spawned a large collection of complaints to the journal and the institutions where the researchers worked (some of which have been placed online). Those complaints sparked an investigation, which finally ended with the paper being retracted.

The initial notice posted by the publisher was fairly clear: there was nothing in particular wrong with "Recursive fury" itself. "This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study," the publisher said. "It did, however, determine that the legal context is insufficiently clear and therefore Frontiers wishes to retract the published article." Separately, the publisher's lawyer told Ars that "it's obviously a regret when you have to retract an article that is scientifically and ethically sound."

The legal context seems to be that some of the complaints used language suggesting that "Recursive fury" might be libelous and defamatory. One of the paper's reviewers claims to have been on a conference call in which libel issues were discussed.

The new statement, however, seems to say the something different. "Frontiers came to the conclusion that it could not continue to carry the paper, which does not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects," Frontiers executives state. "Specifically, the article categorizes the behavior of identifiable individuals within the context of psychopathological characteristics."

The identification of the individuals could be the legal gray area referenced in the retraction notice posted at Frontiers. But if this were the case, it would also seem to be an issue with research ethics—yet the paper had been cleared on ethical grounds.

The statement goes on to say that the authors were given a chance to anonymize the paper, but they submitted a revised paper that the Frontiers editors contend failed to do so. It was only then that the paper was retracted with the agreement of the authors. But according to one of the authors, the researchers had both removed any identifying names, and they had even changed the phrasing of the quotes that formed the basis of their study in such a way that they could no longer be found using Google.

The author, Stephan Lewandowsky, also mentions that the retraction notice was subject to a signed, legally binding agreement between the authors and Frontiers; Lewandowsky told Ars that the lawyers were involved at the publisher's suggestion. But he feels that the new statement runs counter to that agreement. "What I take exception to is their latest statement, which is incompatible with the signed agreement and complete news to us," he told Ars. "I am at a loss to explain this and it leaves me baffled."

Ars also reached out to Frontiers for clarification but has not heard back as of press time.

It's possible that the publisher felt the need to dispel the belief that it caved to libel threats. The collection of Frontiers journals are edited by researchers in the field and require other researchers to perform peer review. At least some of those academics (notably the reviewer mentioned above) may be concerned about the ability of libel worries to override peer review in scientific publishing. Frontiers may not have felt that it could let the initial statement stand as the final word on the matter.

Unfortunately, by failing to explain exactly what was at issue, the publisher seems to have restored interest in the situation. It also left the sort of murky waters that are perfect for the breeding of conspiracy theories.