The AAA publication ethics committee is in the process of establishing a series of statements on publication ethics to guide its stable of journals through the post- Hunton retraction world.

Yet I sometimes worry that the set of statements is going to be used to excuse past bad behaviour rather than being seen as an exercise in codifying generally accepted ethical norms in scientific publishing that we all were responsible for in the past and this is just documenting the norms.

Like,
Thou shall not plagerize oneself ( by submitting essentially the same research twice for publication) or others work.
Thou have to be able to prove your data exists beyond assertions of trust me. And further this applies to all types of research including archival research from published sources!
Thou have joint and several liability for all your co-authored research publications unless it is explicitly noted to the contrary in the article.

Yet as I noted at the AAA publication ethics town hall in August there is a flavour of “from this day forward let the word go forth!!!!!”

While we may forgive those who blindly accepted assurances from co-authors that all was well we cannot absolve them from responsibility to have known those cannons and at the very least they must recognize that they did not live up to the standards the academy expected of them! Those who continue in a state of denial need to be judged as guilty as those who committed the fraud are!

Unfortunately there are all too many co-authors who continue to be in denial in the Hunton saga. Unless you have clear proof that your data is real come forward and ask to be retracted. I have seen some absolutely disgusting justifications for believing the data is from among those who should know better including journal editors!