A scientific paper on the anatomy of the human hand has been retracted by a leading scientific journal following criticism of references it made to a “creator”.

The paper, which was peer reviewed and published in the journal Plos One on 5 January, explored the link between the biomechanical architecture of the hand and its ability to coordinate movements.

But the paper sparked a furore in the scientific community because of its apparent underlying theistic message. The researchers claimed that “hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention.”

Written by researchers from Huazhong University of Science and Technology in China and Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, the study claimed the relationship between the anatomical structure of the hand and its ability to grasp objects is “the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.”

The sentiment is repeated both in the introduction of the article and at its end, where they conclude “our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodelling of the ancestral hand for millions of years.”

Despite cropping up in the article’s abstract, introduction and concluding discussion, the mention of a Creator apparently failed to set alarm bells ringing with peer reviewers - experts who read the scientific paper and recommended publication without querying or amending the passages.

A paper on hand anatomy that contains anatomical inaccuracies and references a "Creator". @PLOSONE I'm shocked! https://t.co/4CUXc878zS — Prof Alice Roberts (@DrAliceRoberts) March 3, 2016

The paper’s publication was met with a barrage of criticism online. “A paper on hand anatomy that contains anatomical inaccuracies and references a “Creator”. @PLOSONE I’m shocked!,” tweeted Professor Alice Roberts, anatomist, broadcaster and author of the Incredible Unlikeliness of Being, in one of the politer reactions.

“I was hoping this paper was a hoax,” wrote a commenter identifying themselves as Dr Raja Chatila on the Plos One site. Others were similarly angry. “As a scientist, as well as a Plos One academic editor and author I feel outraged by the publication of a ms [manuscript] making explicit reference to creationism,” commented Dr Danilo Russo. Anger and disappointment were rife, with some calling for a boycott of Plos One and others threatening to sever links with the journal. “There is no room in the scientific literature for Intelligent Design,” wrote a Dr Michael Sears under a post headed “Retract this article or I resign as an Editor.”

However, in a comment apparently from one of the paper’s authors, Ming-Jin Liu, the researchers claimed the meaning of their phrase had simply been lost in translation. “Our study has no relationship with creationism,” Liu wrote. “Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected.” According to Liu, the authors had merely picked the wrong word. “We will change the Creator to nature in the revised manuscript,” he added.

Indeed some have been quick to condemn the journal for cultural insensitivity. “If it is a language problem, retraction is ridiculous. It only affects the authors when it was a journal’s failure,” tweeted Dr Ignacio Rubio Somoza, of the Centre for Research in Agricultural Genomics in Barcelona.

But in a statement posted on the journal’s website on 4 March, the editors indicated that it wasn’t simply a language issue that prompted the retraction.

“Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a ‘Creator’, and about the overall rationale and findings of the study,” it said, adding that the journal’s editors had looked into the manuscript and review process. “This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review. Consequently, the Plos One editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.”

Writing in the article’s comment section, a commenter identifying himself as Dr Steven Caruso wrote: “This failure in the peer review and editorial oversight of Plos One is very distressing, particularly to those of use with articles that have been published in Plos One as it may diminish the gravitas of those papers as the journals credibility itself is harmed.”Dr Gianluca Polgar was similarly concerned: “It is really difficult to imagine how this paper could ever be published,” he wrote.