“I cannot agree to this unfounded, unscientific, and rather Kafkian retraction.” – Retraction Watch
Mladen Pavicic, of the Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany, and the Ruder Boskovic Institute in Zagreb, Croatia has had a paper retracted from Nanoscale Research Letters.
He’s no longer glad about it.
In a preprint posted to arXiv, “Response to “Retraction Note: Can Two-Way Direct Communication Protocols Be Considered Secure,” Pavicic writes:
Consequently, I cannot agree to this unfounded, unscientific, and rather Kafkian  retraction.
Reference six is, in fact, to Kafka’s The Trial.
Here’s the retraction realize, revealed in July:
The editors have retracted this article  as a result of after e-newsletter issues have been raised in regards to the validity of the conclusions drawn. Post-publication peer overview has printed a flaw within the utility of the important thing charge equation r = IAB-IAE. For calculation of the time period IAE, the impact of disturbance (D) on each the message mode (MM) and keep an eye on mode (CM) used to be no longer taken under consideration. The major declare of the paper cannot be reliably reached. The creator does no longer agree to this retraction.
We requested whether or not Pavicic had submitted the preprint to Nanoscale Research Letters. No, he mentioned. “I don’t believe they would publish it.” That’s as a result of, he mentioned, after a bunch of authors had submitted a touch upon his paper,
I used to be requested to write a reaction and I did so however the referees recommended the editor no longer put up it and he hasn’t.
The remark used to be no longer revealed, both, however the authors posted it on arXiv, and then Pavicic posted a remark of his personal.
We requested the magazine for remark at the arXiv preprint. Jiang Wu, editor in leader, informed us:
We weren’t conscious about the deposition on arXiv. In this case, issues have been raised with us after this paper and we solicited a publish e-newsletter overview from a longtime knowledgeable within the box. We are happy from the overview retraction used to be warranted. We deal with correspondences of this sort as confidential and due to this fact cannot remark additional.
Given Pavicic’s reference to Kafka, most likely it used to be to be anticipated that reporting on this retraction tangled us for a couple of days in Springer Nature’s forms.
That’s for the reason that electronic mail deal with that Nanoscale Research Letters supplies for “General inquiries” is spoke back no longer through an editor there, however through quite a lot of “Global Open Research Support Specialists” on the publishing Leviathan. Those experts it seems that attempted to are compatible our request for remark into a couple of other situations.
First got here this:
Thank you on your passion in linking to the Springer Nature web page. Unfortunately, it’s not Springer Nature’s coverage at this time to reciprocate hyperlinks and put up visitor posts. I’m sorry to disappoint you on this subject.
We have been sorely disillusioned request we didn’t make used to be denied.
But there used to be hope. We may just write a remark ourselves! An excessively small one, although:
In line along with your request, if you want to post your article as Nano Commentaries, it’s possible you’ll to find one standards underneath:
— The first shape is a dialogue of an editorial or trial that used to be just lately revealed or this is quickly to be revealed, and this is fascinating sufficient to warrant additional remark or clarification. This form of Nano Commentary discusses particular problems inside a topic space rather than the entire box, explains the results of the thing and places it in context. Opinions are welcome so long as they’re factually primarily based.
We in fact admire the be offering.
Like Retraction Watch? You could make a tax-deductible contribution to improve our paintings, apply us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, upload us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our day by day digest. If you discover a retraction that’s no longer in our database, you’ll tell us right here. For feedback or comments, electronic mail us at [email protected].