A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
I suggest just replying and saying thanks we just wanted to her to know that there was someone trying to cause griefin case she got embroiled in it. I can't see any benefit in demanding anything from Nature - we don't want them to beupset with us.
-
@Kristian Andersen Are you able to do anything? Or do we just press the transfer to MedRxiv button?
-
@Kristian Andersen I unfortunately can't do anything on my end - I only get the paper once it's through the first step. Does it have human data in it? If yes, then MedRxiv is required
-
@Kristian Andersen Whether someone is dead or not?
-
2020-07-31 09:49
Andrew Rambaut
@Kristian Andersen So will transfer. Thanks.
-
@Kristian Andersen Yeah, if you have data like that in there that requires human subjects research approval so itends up with MedRxiv...
-
Yeah, I agree we don't want to push it - however, from the email it doesn't appear that Clare thought about doing anything at all, which I really don't think is appropriate here - at a minimum she needs to contact the reviewers about the breach. I don't think that's an unreasonable request? I would kinda hope journals would take breachesseriously...
-
It's an OK response - she probably had to consult a lawyer to allow use of the term "disappointing, if." Consider thisa successful immunization if DT tries to push this further with Nature or if DT tries for some other journalist. Nature can't say they weren't warned. Journals - like universities - are risk adverse - don't want to do ANYTHING to damage the brand - if they can sweep under the rug that's their first impulse.
-
I agree. She probably wouldn't say if they did escalate it but my guess is a black mark against the reviewer (if only inClare's mind).