COVID-19 Records

Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, pp.559-560 [SLACK_000773] · slack_pm:msg:05839

Page text: p.559, p.560 · original PDF

Date
2021-03-01 15:09
Type
chat message · slack
recipient
Kristian G. Andersen, Robert F. Garry, Andrew Rambaut
speaker
Edward C. Holmes

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

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!

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 Kristian G. Andersen open
    "Ignores" - better.
  2. 2021-03-01 15:01 Edward C. Holmes open
    Yes indeed
  3. 2021-03-01 15:04 Andrew Rambaut open
    I can just imagine the cringy reply about how everyone worked super hard.
  4. 2021-03-01 15:05 Kristian G. Andersen open
    Hah - there's no going back from this other than a full retraction. This is embarrassing beyond belief.
  5. 2021-03-01 15:09 Edward C. Holmes
    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!
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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!!
  9. 2021-03-01 15:23 Andrew Rambaut open
    There we go. As predicted: [shared file(s): image.png]

Full conversation →