Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.126 [SLACK_000340] · slack_pm:msg:01290

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

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).

In context

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

2020-07-31 09:49 Andrew Rambaut open

@Kristian Andersen So will transfer. Thanks.
2020-07-31 09:50 Kristian G. Andersen open

@Kristian Andersen Yeah, if you have data like that in there that requires human subjects research approval so itends up with MedRxiv...
2020-07-31 10:10 Kristian G. Andersen open

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...
2020-07-31 10:57 Robert F. Garry open

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.
2020-07-31 11:13 Andrew Rambaut

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).