Chat message

In context

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

1. 2021-03-01 15:00 Andrew Rambaut open
   I am not sure 'misrepresents' more than completely ignores.
2. 2021-03-01 15:00 Kristian G. Andersen open
   "Ignores" - better.
3. 2021-03-01 15:01 Edward C. Holmes open
   Yes indeed
4. 2021-03-01 15:04 Andrew Rambaut open
   I can just imagine the cringy reply about how everyone worked super hard.
5. 2021-03-01 15:05 Kristian G. Andersen
   Hah - there's no going back from this other than a full retraction. This is embarrassing beyond belief.
6. 2021-03-01 15:09 Edward C. Holmes open
   It is indeed a total disaster. The original version was a technical piece about issues in phylogenetic analysis. It was fine. The Editor then completely rewrote it into this shit. But all that stuff about Emma saving the world came from the paper authors. That was embarrassing and misleading. It also totally over-hyped the issues. Rob Lanfear saidhe agreed with my concerns but still decided to be an author!
7. 2021-03-01 15:11 Kristian G. Andersen open
   One very important question the authors need to ask themselves - would they have been authors if this had been for, say, Nature Microbiology and not Nature?
8. 2021-03-01 15:12 Kristian G. Andersen open
   Charles trying to convince me to stay on his paper made it very clear that he had been talking directly to NEJM and Cell and that they both wanted it - this should _never_ be a consideration when it comes to sloppy science. Orwhatever-the-fuck this is. Just horrible.
9. 2021-03-01 15:13 Edward C. Holmes open
   The reaction to their paper is EXACTLY what I told them would happen. They were warned!!

Full conversation →