A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
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
-
... let me get this on a Google Doc...
-
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lMm6tD1L7a7yz6FFyhaY95y30Dl7Zkg26wqsm6SYnaI/edit?usp=sharing
-
Hi - I am not sure about this (emailing Clare) - are we giving too much away here?
-
2020-07-29 16:23
Andrew Rambaut
I am just trying to think through what she will do?
-
I don't think we're giving away anything are we? She'll reach out to Reviewer 2 and possibly 1. And bring it up with the journal
-
Made some suggested edits to disentangle the libellous allegations from the reviewing breach. Feel free to revert.
-
I've made some edits as well. My version is below. We need to think this through very carefully. Kristian, you should run it past your comms person. I don't think we should ask Clare to resolve the matter as it's not her doing and this just puts it ball in her court which seems unfair. I think just alerting her is enough:
-
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, including details about a confidential and private meeting involving senior US andUK officials/scientists on a topic that is highly sensitive but ultimately led to our "Proximal Origins" paper that wesubmitted to Nature some months ago. The allegations are false, we feel they are libelous, and we are taking this matter very seriously. We are contacting you because the email also shows a breach in confidentiality of the peer review process. The anonymous emailer (individual B) names you and Nature and describes several private and confidential details about the review process. Clearly, individual B is either Reviewer 2 of our paper, or Reviewer 2 shared confidential information with them. There are no other explanations for how this person could have known it had been reviewedby Nature or details of the review, except for a breach of the peer review process: we have not shared any of the peer review details with anyone. It does not appear that individual B knew that you discussed the paper directly with Nature Medicine, nor does it appear that the person knew who the handling editor was at that journal (Joao).We are very sorry to have to bring this to your attention, but given how serious a matter this is, we feel we have nochoice as our scientific reputations are being judged.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