Definition: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Input: Someone at PLOS ONE dropped the ball. Which is weird because the Creator made hands really good at grabbing stuff. http://goo.gl/0yWl1x ||||| 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 A scientific paper on the anatomy of the human hand has been retracted by a leading scientific journal following criticism of references it made to a “creator”. 
  
 The paper, which was peer reviewed and published in the journal Plos One on 5 January, explored the link between the biomechanical architecture of the hand and its ability to coordinate movements. 
  
 But the paper sparked a furore in the scientific community because of its apparent underlying theistic message. 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. 
  
 Prof Alice Roberts (@DrAliceRoberts) A paper on hand anatomy that contains anatomical inaccuracies and references a "Creator". @PLOSONE I'm shocked! https://t.co/4CUXc878zS 
  
 The paper’s publication was met with a barrage of criticism online. “A paper on hand anatomy that contains anatomical inaccuracies and references a “Creator”. @PLOSONE I’m shocked!,” tweeted Professor Alice Roberts, anatomist, broadcaster and author of the Incredible Unlikeliness of Being, in one of the politer reactions. 
  
 “I was hoping this paper was a hoax,” wrote a commenter identifying themselves as Dr Raja Chatila on the Plos One site. Others were similarly angry. “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. Anger and disappointment were rife, with some calling for a boycott of Plos One and others threatening to sever links with the journal. “There is no room in the scientific literature for Intelligent Design,” wrote a Dr Michael Sears under a post headed “Retract this article or I resign as an Editor.” 
  
 However, in a comment apparently from one of the paper’s authors, Ming-Jin Liu, the researchers claimed the meaning of their phrase had simply been lost in translation. “Our study has no relationship with creationism,” Liu wrote. “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. “We will change the Creator to nature in the revised manuscript,” he added. 
  
 Peer review, preprints and the speed of science Read more 
  
 Indeed some have been quick to condemn the journal for cultural insensitivity. “If it is a language problem, retraction is ridiculous. It only affects the authors when it was a journal’s failure,” tweeted Dr Ignacio Rubio Somoza, of the Centre for Research in Agricultural Genomics in Barcelona. 
  
 But in a statement posted on the journal’s website on 4 March, the editors indicated that it wasn’t simply a language issue that prompted the retraction. 
  
 “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. “This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review. 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. ||||| Stuart Dee/Getty Images 
  
 Researchers who wrote “design by the Creator” in a paper about the function of the human hand have triggered a debate over the quality of editing and peer review at the journal that published it — and ultimately retracted it. 
  
 The paper by Cai-Hua Xiong of Huazhong University of Science and Technology in Wuhan, China, and his co-authors appeared in the journal PLoS ONE on 5 January1. But it came to prominence this week after its apparently creationist slant was flagged on Twitter, spawning the hashtags #Creatorgate and #HandofGod. 
  
 James McInerney, who works on computational molecular evolution at the University of Manchester, UK, started the ball rolling when he tweeted: 
  
 Plos One is now a joke. "....proper design of the Creator" absolute joke of a journal https://t.co/AJexYjewoo — James McInerney (@jomcinerney) 2 March 2016 
  
 McInerney later provided a caveat, saying: “My original tweet was strong because creationism is a nuisance to me for 20+ years.” 
  
 The paper's authors asked volunteers to perform a variety of tasks with their hands, and the researchers concluded that “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 remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years”. It also includes the sentence, “Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention”. 
  
 When contacted by Nature, Xiong said that he was discussing the issues raised with his co-authors and would respond as soon as possible. He added, “Indeed, we are not native speakers of English, and entirely lost the connotations of some words such as ‘Creator’. I am so sorry for that.” 
  
 Other commenters expressed amazement that the paper had made it past peer review, and jokingly added that it should have included a citation to an appropriate deity. 
  
 “There’s nothing wrong with the data that I can see, but the authors do make a surprising leap in the abstract and conclusion,” wrote biologist P. Z. Myers on his popular atheism and science blog Pharyngula. 
  
 Quality control 
  
 Others used the paper to discuss broader issues of journal quality, many responding to McInernery’s ‘joke’ comment about PLoS ONE. Some argued that it showed the importance and growing role of post-publication peer review, whereas others continued to criticize or defend the actions of the publisher. 
  
 In online comments under the paper, various people who referred to themselves as PLOS editors expressed dismay that the paper had been published and threatened action, including resignations, if it was not retracted. Others said that the paper showed that peer-review standards at the journal were too low. (PLoS ONE accepts papers if reviewers find the science technically sound; it does not review for a paper’s importance or impact). 
  
 Enrico Petretto, a genomics researcher at Imperial College London, wrote: “This is outrageous. If PLOS ONE does not do something about it, i.e., ask the authors to retract the paper, and in any case, if the paper isn’t retracted, my students, collaborators and I will have no choice but to refrain from considering (i.e., reading, reviewing and citing) papers published in PLOS ONE.” 
  
 But others defended PLOS, pointing out other high-profile papers that had been published after peer review and had since been found to be problematic, including ‘arsenic life’ in Science and ‘the memory of water’ in Nature. 
  
 Marc Robinson-Rechavi, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, responded to McInernery’s tweet by saying “calling a journal which tries to publish honest reproducible science without concern for “impact” a joke is unjustified”. 
  
 He told Nature “I do agree with more or less everyone that it is inappropriate to mention the creator with a capital C in the paper.” 
  
 But, says Robinson-Rechavi, who is an academic editor at PLoS ONE, journals that publish many papers inevitably make mistakes: “no human process is error free”. What matters now is how PLOS responds to this error, he says. 
  
 After the social-media storm, PLOS issued an initial statement to the media saying “PLOS has just been made aware of this issue and we are looking into it in depth. Our internal editors are reviewing the manuscript and will decide what course of action to take. The PLOS publishing team is also assessing its processes.” 
  
 Later, on 2 March, the journal added an online statement to the paper: “A number of readers have concerns about sentences in the article that make references to a ‘Creator’. The PLOS ONE editors apologize that this language was not addressed internally or by the Academic Editor during the evaluation of the manuscript. We are looking into the concerns raised about the article with priority and will take steps to correct the published record.” 
  
 Andrew David Thaler, a marine scientist and blogger at Southern Fried Science, took a different tack: 
  
 People are freaking out about the #HandOfGod as if there weren't millions of publications with equally tenuous introductions & discussions. — Andrew David Thaler (@SFriedScientist) 2 March 2016 
  
 On 3 March, the journal added in a further online statement that it would be retracting the article: "We have completed an evaluation of the history of the submission and received advice from two experts in our editorial board. 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. 
  
 In light of the concerns identified, the PLOS ONE editors have decided to retract the article, the retraction is being processed and will be posted as soon as possible. We apologize for the errors and oversight leading to the publication of this paper." ||||| Hello, 
  
  
  
 Changing the word ?Creator? into ?Nature? will not make your paper flawless. And this is not only about you anymore as your editor gave his warrant to PLoS one to publish your text as it appeared. 
  
  
  
 Even without the word ?Creator?, your text is problematic. 
  
 ?Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator?s invention.? (Intro?s first paragraph) 
  
 You should consider replacing ?invention? too. Plus: since when is science performed to point at a mystery rather than bringing it into light, piece by piece? This is faith speaking. Wonders of nature are for our eyes, ie they are subjective, and your text is full of subjective claims. Select examples of hollow sentences can be found in a comment I posted this morning. 
  
  
  
 ?We adopted the reverse research method, going from the result to the reason.? (Discussion) 
  
 How is that ?reverse?? What would be ?forward research method?? As you put it, it would go ?from the reason to the result?? which is fraud as I understand it. Besides, how many research methods do you think we can apply? The only research method that I know is called inferential: from controlled facts and context to interpretation. This supposed ?pluralism? reminded me that science is an opinion in the opinion of creationists. 
  
 Even though you claim having nothing to do with creationism, your paper in this form has. 
  
  
  
 Having sampled quite a few sentences in a few minutes, I have strong concerns about the editing process. I noticed that the editor is based in Ohio. I also noticed that creationists have been especially active over there. I hope that this is coincidental. 
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/... 
  
 https://en.wikipedia.org/... 
  
 http://www.cleveland.com/... 
  
  
  
 Finally, I daresay that style flaws are not typical of Intelligent Design products. Catchy titles once confined to reviews are now used for research papers themselves, and worse: biological objects are commonly endowed with intentions in the sentences describing how they evolve, meet or perform their functions, even in good papers. Using simple, truthful words as we describe our work is not only a personal choice: it is also a responsibility that we all should stand for. 
  
 Thank you for your attention. |||||
Output:
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.