Afarensis, Entertaining Research, Evolution Blog, Galactic Interactions, Jim River Report, John Hawks Weblog, Rebecca Hartong, Mike the Mad Biologist, Sharp Blue, Synthesis of Thought, The Panda’s Thumb, Thought Capital, and Thoughts in a Haystack are all writing about John Wiley & Sons / Wiley Interscience attempted takedown of Retrospectacle’s critical article on their “alcohol is good for you piece. These articles, joined by A Blog Around the Clock, Abnormal Interests, Adventures in Ethics and Science, Evolving Thoughts, Kitchen Table Math, Mixing Memory, Parentalcation,
Notes from Dr. RW, Open Reading Frame, Pith and Substance, and Sandwalk, point out that Wiley Interscience / John Wiley & Sons is attempting to censor a blogger in retaliation for a critical look at data. While JL Kirk used the cover of defamation, Wiley Interscience is using copyright.
Of course, I wish the very best to Retrospectacle and her “fair use piling on,” I am skeptical on whether or not it can work. And the reason is obvious: Retrospectacle has already caved.
Retrospectacle complied with Wiley Interscience’s demands. You can view the original critique yourself, and see that this isn’t exactly a “profiles in courage” case. It’s nice and fine for Retrospectacle to curse John Wiley & Sons, after submitting to them, but it’s hard to get worked up about it. Unlike Kat Coble v. JL Kirk, unlike (modesty aside) tdaxp v. Nationmaster — unlike even King Leonides v. Persia — Retrospectacle calmly submits and then complains about the unfair treatment.
If Retrospectacle is serious about defending her rights, criticizing John Wiley & Sons / Wiley Interscience, she will restore her post to how it was before the threatening letter. Otherwise, don’t expect a kirking.
Otherwise, as Larry Moren points out, this bruhaha is just another reason to use
PLoS and digital commons. Which is too bad, because John Wiley & Sons / Wiley Interscience has resorted to this thuggery before.