An odd event in a retraction case
A post in Retraction Watch titled Author wins judgment against Elsevier in lawsuit over retraction describes
an interesting event, wherein a publisher was required to publish part of a court decision (from Spain, not the US) in the context of a retraction.
Within the post
In October, an appeals court in Spain determined that Delibes and his co-authors had been “falsely accused of plagiarism and misappropriation of data.”
On Dec. 14, Elsevier published a note that began:
Following legal action taken by Dr Miguel Delibes, who objected to the retraction, the Sevilla Court of Appeals requires us to publish the following paragraph – contained in its ruling of October 9th 2017 – in relation to the first version of the retraction which was corrected in October 2011.
an interesting event, wherein a publisher was required to publish part of a court decision (from Spain, not the US) in the context of a retraction.
Within the post
In October, an appeals court in Spain determined that Delibes and his co-authors had been “falsely accused of plagiarism and misappropriation of data.”
On Dec. 14, Elsevier published a note that began:
Following legal action taken by Dr Miguel Delibes, who objected to the retraction, the Sevilla Court of Appeals requires us to publish the following paragraph – contained in its ruling of October 9th 2017 – in relation to the first version of the retraction which was corrected in October 2011.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 11:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home