Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.119 [SLACK_000333] · slack_pm:msg:01216

Date: 2020-07-29 15:59
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen
Topics: Proximal Origin paper Congressional oversight Intelligence community assessments

Recipients on this medium are inferred from channel membership, not per-message addressing.

How's this for a first draft: Dear Clare, We wanted to alert you to this anonymous email that was shared with us from a reputable journalist. The email makes several serious allegations about the research ethics of our "Proximal Origin" paper that we submitted to Nature a while back. The libelous allegations are false and we are taking this matter very seriously. The anonymous emailer (let's call the person RB) names you and your journal and describes several private and confidential details about the review process. We believe that RB is either Reviewer 2 of our paper, or Reviewer 2shared confidential information with RB. There are no other explanations for how RB could have obtained this information, except for a breach of the peer review process - we have not shared any of the peer review details put forward by RB.The libelous accusations put forward by RB includes confidential details about private meetings held via secure lines involving senior US and UK officials/scientists on a topic that is highly sensitive. In addition to this, RB (and Reviewer 2, if RB is not Reviewer 2) also breached the confidentiality of the peer review process.We are sorry to have to bring this to your attention, but given how serious a matter this is, we have no choice.We look forward to hearing back from you on how we may resolve this matter. Please let us know if you have any questions. We are available for a phone call if that would be helpful. Best, Kristian and Eddie

Extracted statements

Rule-extracted, not adjudicated. The grade says what may be done with each one; read the document above before relying on any of them.

Statement	Grade	Attribution	Stance
We believe that RB is either Reviewer 2 of our paper, or Reviewer 2shared confidential information with RB.	own voice, substantive	speaker_own	asserts
There are no other explanations for how RB could have obtained this information, except for a breach of the peer review process - we have not shared any of the peer review details put forward by RB.The libelous accusations put forward by RB includes confidential details about private meetings held via secure lines involving senior US and UK officials/scientists on a topic that is highly sensitive.	quoted / not their view	hypothetical conditional framing	asserts

Statement

Grade

Attribution

Stance

We believe that RB is either Reviewer 2 of our paper, or Reviewer 2shared confidential information with RB.

own voice, substantive

speaker_own

asserts

There are no other explanations for how RB could have obtained this information, except for a breach of the peer review process - we have not shared any of the peer review details put forward by RB.The libelous accusations put forward by RB includes confidential details about private meetings held via secure lines involving senior US and UK officials/scientists on a topic that is highly sensitive.

quoted / not their view

hypothetical conditional framing

asserts

In context

A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.

2020-07-29 15:59 Kristian G. Andersen

How's this for a first draft: Dear Clare, We wanted to alert you to this anonymous email that was shared with us from a reputable journalist. The email makes several serious allegations about the research ethics of our "Proximal Origin" paper that we submitted to Nature a while back. The libelous allegations are false and we are taking this matter very seriously. The anonymous emailer (let's call the person RB) names you and your journal and describes several private and confidential details about the review process. We believe that RB is either Reviewer 2 of our paper, or Reviewer 2shared confidential information with RB. There are no other explanations for how RB could have obtained this information, except for a breach of the peer review process - we have not shared any of the peer review details put forward by RB.The libelous accusations put forward by RB includes confidential details about private meetings held via secure lines involving senior US and UK officials/scientists on a topic that is highly sensitive. In addition to this, RB (and Reviewer 2, if RB is not Reviewer 2) also breached the confidentiality of the peer review process.We are sorry to have to bring this to your attention, but given how serious a matter this is, we have no choice.We look forward to hearing back from you on how we may resolve this matter. Please let us know if you have any questions. We are available for a phone call if that would be helpful. Best, Kristian and Eddie
2020-07-29 16:02 Kristian G. Andersen open

... let me get this on a Google Doc...
2020-07-29 16:03 Kristian G. Andersen open

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lMm6tD1L7a7yz6FFyhaY95y30Dl7Zkg26wqsm6SYnaI/edit?usp=sharing
2020-07-29 16:21 Andrew Rambaut open

Hi - I am not sure about this (emailing Clare) - are we giving too much away here?
2020-07-29 16:23 Andrew Rambaut open

I am just trying to think through what she will do?

Full conversation →