The researchers claimed that “hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention.” 
 
 Human-animal studies academics dogged by German hoaxers Read more 
 
 Written by researchers from Huazhong University of Science and Technology in China and Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, the study claimed the relationship between the anatomical structure of the hand and its ability to grasp objects is “the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.” 
 
 The sentiment is repeated both in the introduction of the article and at its end, where they conclude “our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodelling of the ancestral hand for millions of years.” 
 
 Despite cropping up in the article’s abstract, introduction and concluding discussion, the mention of a Creator apparently failed to set alarm bells ringing with peer reviewers - experts who read the scientific paper and recommended publication without querying or amending the passages.  Paper states “hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention,” although the Chinese authors say a linguistic mix-up is to blame 
 
 A scientific paper on the anatomy of the human hand has been retracted by a leading scientific journal following criticism of references it made to a “creator”. When contacted by Nature, Xiong said that he was discussing the issues raised with his co-authors and would respond as soon as possible. “Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected.” According to Liu, the authors had merely picked the wrong word. Consequently, the Plos One editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.” 
 
 Writing in the article’s comment section, a commenter identifying himself as Dr Steven Caruso wrote: “This failure in the peer review and editorial oversight of Plos One is very distressing, particularly to those of use with articles that have been published in Plos One as it may diminish the gravitas of those papers as the journals credibility itself is harmed.”Dr Gianluca Polgar was similarly concerned: “It is really difficult to imagine how this paper could ever be published,” he wrote. “Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a ‘Creator’, and about the overall rationale and findings of the study,” it said, adding that the journal’s editors had looked into the manuscript and review process. “As a scientist, as well as a Plos One academic editor and author I feel outraged by the publication of a ms [manuscript] making explicit reference to creationism,” commented Dr Danilo Russo. Our internal review and the advice we have received have confirmed the concerns about the article and revealed that the peer review process did not adequately evaluate several aspects of the work.
– Think a "Divine Creator" belongs in science? Well, a peer-reviewed paper that mentions "the Creator" sparked such an outcry that it's been retracted with an apology, the Guardian reports. The paper, about the human hand's design and dexterity, mentions the "Creator" more than once. "Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention," write co-authors Ming-Jin Liu, Cai-Hua Xiong, Le Xiong, and Xiao-Lin Huang in one instance. They also maintain that the hand's grasping ability is "the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way." Published in PLoS ONE, the paper drew such condemning remarks on its comments page and Twitter that the work was retracted. Among the tweets: Plos One is now a joke. "....proper design of the Creator" absolute joke of a journal — James McInerney "Someone at PLOS ONE dropped the ball. Which is weird because the Creator made hands really good at grabbing stuff." — T. Ryan Gregory Some say the fracas illustrates the value of post-publication peer review, while others point out that PLoS ONE isn't the first scientific journal to publish problematic articles, Nature reports. A comment apparently posted by a study co-author says they used "Creator" by mistake because they aren't native English speakers, and will change it to "nature" in a new version. But in its apology and retraction, PLoS ONE identified deeper concerns "with the scientific rationale, presentation, and language" of the paper.