This is a very nice discussion, but it bothers me that what is clearly a plain error in their ZoomIn paper is being treated a bit cavalierly. (The error was claiming a neuron was a "dog and car" neuron, when in fact it was a V neuron. ZoomIn wasn't the first to make the error, but it definitely promoted it.)
This type of error may have mislead researchers for years; it was actually harmful. In my field, a correction, or perhaps retraction (depending on the centrality of the claim), would be standard for something of this magnitude.
I suppose there are different standards in different scholarly communities. And maybe it truly was impossible to know at the time that the dog/car relation was actually a V shape, but my recollection is that this type of feature was well known at the time and so the error could have (should have?) been caught a decade ago.
So: massive new discovery, or a spin on a correction that's lead scholarly research astray for almost a decade?
This type of error may have mislead researchers for years; it was actually harmful. In my field, a correction, or perhaps retraction (depending on the centrality of the claim), would be standard for something of this magnitude.
I suppose there are different standards in different scholarly communities. And maybe it truly was impossible to know at the time that the dog/car relation was actually a V shape, but my recollection is that this type of feature was well known at the time and so the error could have (should have?) been caught a decade ago.
So: massive new discovery, or a spin on a correction that's lead scholarly research astray for almost a decade?