{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022920203735144314, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003395585738539898, 'mean_word_length': 5.172774869109948, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The mishandling of scientifically flawed articles about radiation exposure, retracted for ethical reasons, impedes understanding of the scientific issues pointed out by Letters to the Editor

We discuss the editorial handling of two papers that were published in and then retracted from the Journal of Radiological Protection (JRP).1,2 The papers, which dealt with radiation exposure in Date City, were retracted because “ethically inappropriate data were used.”3,4 Before retraction, four Letters to the Editor pointing out scientific issues in the papers had been submitted to JRP. The Letters were all accepted or provisionally accepted through peer review. Nevertheless, JRP later refused to publish them. We examine the handling by JRP of the Letters, and show that it left the reader unapprised of a) the extent of the issues in the papers, which went far beyond the use of unconsented data, and b) the problems in the way the journal handled the matter. By its actions in this case, JRP has enabled unscientific, unfounded and erroneous claims to remain unacknowledged. We propose some countermeasures to prevent such inappropriate actions by academic journals in future.