Chat message

Slack / Private Message Drop, p.752 [SLACK_000966] · slack_pm:msg:07871

Date: 2021-05-05 14:33
Type: chat message · slack
recipient: Robert F. Garry, Edward C. Holmes, Andrew Rambaut
speaker: Kristian G. Andersen

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

If they focus it on "... but they were working in mines and there's this weird FCS", I swear to God, I will not be gentle.Not a good career move on my end if it comes to that, but if it's the same old speculation with no science, well, so beit.

In context

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

2021-05-05 14:19 Kristian G. Andersen open

This should be interesting [shared file(s): upcoming letter]
2021-05-05 14:29 Edward C. Holmes open

Would definitely be interesting to see it. Don't like the passive aggressive bit about the UK papers breaking theembargo.
2021-05-05 14:32 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yeah, I don't know what that embargo comment was about... I don't expect much from the letter - probably the same uninformed speculation Relman put in PNAS. Which would be very disappointing.
2021-05-05 14:33 Kristian G. Andersen

If they focus it on "... but they were working in mines and there's this weird FCS", I swear to God, I will not be gentle.Not a good career move on my end if it comes to that, but if it's the same old speculation with no science, well, so beit.
2021-05-05 14:35 Edward C. Holmes open

I can't think there will be any new science. Would could there be. I bet it will be about the 8 mystery sequences. I'llscream if it rattles on about RaTG13.
2021-05-05 14:37 Kristian G. Andersen open

Yeah, there's no scientific basis, so I'm curious - I'm all for "keeping our eyes open", but not if they justify that aninvestigation must be done because of e.g., RaTG13. We'll see. Kinda funny this'll be in journal called "Science".... :wink:
2021-05-05 14:48 Robert F. Garry open

• There's a pretty big difference between a perspective and a letter. *Perspectives* (up to 1000 words plus 1 figure) highlight recent exciting research, but do not primarily discuss the author's own work. They may provide context for the findings within a field or explain potential interdisciplinary importance. Perspectives that comment on papersin _Science_ should add a dimension to the research and not merely be a summary of the experiments described inthe paper. Although many Perspectives that comment on research published in _Science_ are solicited, wewelcome inquiries regarding new advances and fresh insights. As these are meant to express a personal viewpoint,with rare exceptions, Perspectives should have no more than two authors. *Letters* (up to 300 words) discuss material published in _Science_ in the last 3 months or issues of general interest. Letters should be submitted through our Manuscript Submission and Information Portal (*https://cts.sciencemag.org*). Letters may be reviewed. The author of a paper in question is usually given an opportunity to reply. Letter submissions are acknowledged upon receipt by _Science_'s automatic system, but letter writers are not always consulted before publication. Letters are subject to editing for clarity and space. Letters rejected for print publication may be posted as eLetters.
2021-05-05 14:49 Robert F. Garry open

So yeah - reading my own post -it's probably a letter not a perspective. "Perspectives should have no more than two authors."

Full conversation →