We never cease to be amazed what can make it through peer review and several levels of editing.

In this case, some fish mating researchers wrote an, um, love note to their peers that failed to be edited out by any of the many eyes who must have at least glanced over it.

Here’s our favorite passage in “Variation in Melanism and Female Preference in Proximate but Ecologically Distinct Environments” (emphasis ours), published in Ethology:

Although association preferences documented in our study theoretically could be a consequence of either mating or shoaling preferences in the different female groups investigated (should we cite the crappy Gabor paper here?), shoaling preferences are unlikely drivers of the documented patterns both because of evidence from previous research and inconsistencies with a priori predictions.

If that’s not a candidate for #overlyhonestmethods, we’re not sure what is. Let’s hope they were focusing too hard on the science to notice the citations.

Or maybe they meant “crappie.”

Update, 12:50 p.m. Eastern, 11/11/14: The journal has apparently removed the paper sometime in the last 15 minutes and replaced it with

Sorry an error has occurred

We have asked the publisher for comment, and will update with anything we learn.

Update, 1:30 p.m. Eastern, 11/11/14: Corresponding author Zach Culumber tells us:

No, this was not intentional. It was added into the paper by a co-author during revision (after peer-review). It was unfortunately an oversight that became incorporated into the paper during the process of sending the manuscript back and forth between co-authors. The comment in question was not spotted during the proofing process with the journal. Neither myself nor any of the co-authors have any ill-will towards any other investigators, and I would never condone this sentiment towards another person or their work. We are working with the Journal now to correct the mistake. As the corresponding author, I apologize for the error.

Update, 2:20 p.m. Eastern, 11/11/14: A Wiley spokesperson tells us:

We are in the process of investigating how this line made it to publication. In the meantime as you will have noticed, we have now removed the paper from our platform. The paper will be republished ASAP without the line and will acknowledge the change.

Update, 11:30 a.m. Eastern, 11/12/14: Caitlin Gabor got in touch. She told us she knows a few of the authors, and has published with author Michi Tobler in the past:

I would appreciate an apology from all of the authors.

Hat tip: Dave Harris

Share this: Email

Facebook

Twitter

