Hearsay is not admissible as evidence in court and it doesnt seem to go very far in science, either.

A pair of researchers in the field of human evolution have lost a paper which contained data from personal correspondence that the providing party apparently did not enjoy seeing in print.

The article, Early hominin biogeography in Island Southeast Asia, was published in the September/October 2015 issue of Evolutionary Anthropology. The authors, Roy Larick and Russell Ciochon, are paleoanthropologists and co-founders of the Iowa-Bandung Java Project a 20-year old collaborative effort to study the origins of early humans in Indonesia.

Per the retraction notice:

The above article from Evolutionary Anthropology, published on 19 October 2015 in Wiley OnlineLibrary (www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com), and in Volume 24, Number 5, pp. 185-213, has been retracted by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The retraction has been made due to the inclusion without explicit permission of unpublished third-party research data disclosed to the authors in personal correspondence. The Editor notes that the journal has since clarified its policy on citing unpublished research findings, and in particular those disclosed in personal correspondence, to avoid future instances of this nature.

John Fleagle, who edits Evolutionary Anthropology, referred us to the writers guidelines page for the new policy:

Because Evolutionary Anthropology is primarily a review journal, we discourage the use of Personal Communications as citations. If Personal Communications, or any other unpublished materials are cited, the author(s) must include a copy of the communication stating the evidence cited and giving the author(s) permission to use the observations.

This is the journals first-ever retraction.

Larick provided a bit more information about the article in an email:

The issue of communicated data arose after publication. We were surprised with the issue and especially with the demand for retraction. We were yet more surprised that Wiley retracted the paper on the grounds cited. Through two lawyers, one in Iowa City and one in New York, we attempted to develop a solution not involving retraction. Our biggest surprise was that Wiley seemed determined to retract under any circumstance.

We have not yet decided on how to proceed with the paper, which is a review of literature and current ideas. Much of the communicated data (citations of personal communication) has now been published.

The Evolutionary Anthropology paper is a synthesis of our work integrated with other current research, especially that of the Australians. So much good material was on the verge of publication as we were finishing the paper in 2015. We relied on personal communications to bring new studies to light. We had made our intentions clear to our colleagueseveryone knew about this paper. With hindsight, we pushed personal communication a little too far. As an aside, neither the editor nor any of the five reviewers expressed concern about our citations.

It is our great disappointment that the paper could not be kept published with accommodations to the offended scientists. We feel that our case lies well outside the standard (an necessary) reasons for retracting scientific papers.

The paper has been cited once, according toClarivate Analytics Web of Science.

Like Retraction Watch? Consider making atax-deductible contribution to support our growth. You can also follow uson Twitter, like uson Facebook, add us to yourRSS reader, sign up on ourhomepagefor an email every time theres a new post, or subscribe to ourdaily digest. Clickhere to review our Comments Policy. For a sneak peek at what were working on,click here.

Follow this link:

Inclusion of personal correspondence in evolution paper prompts ... - Retraction Watch (blog)