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 15:09 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!
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. 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!!
5. 2021-03-01 15:23 Andrew Rambaut
   There we go. As predicted: [shared file(s): image.png]
6. 2021-03-01 15:23 Andrew Rambaut open
   "exactly what we were trying to avoid"
7. 2021-03-01 15:27 Edward C. Holmes open
   That's total BS!!! You saw my emails.
8. 2021-03-01 15:31 Edward C. Holmes open
   If they wanted to avoid these issues they would removed all the personal stuff.
9. 2021-03-01 15:32 Kristian G. Andersen open
   And this is directly insulting to me - this isn't about fucking me man! [shared file(s): Screen Shot 2021-03-01 at15.31.21.png]

Full conversation →