A single line often inverts meaning once you see what it
answers, so neighbouring messages are always shown.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
• 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
So yeah - reading my own post -it's probably a letter not a perspective. "Perspectives should have no more than two authors."
-
Wondering who the other authors are? eDim, Lipstich. Surely they wouldn't put Alina or Metzl. Other Parisites?
-
I would be delighted if they put Metzl on. Alina is a likely one - she really got into Jesse's head.
-
It'd be great if they'd put something specific in there - whatever that might be. That way it's much easier to pick apart. If it's aimless speculation, well, then all one can say is "nothing new in there".
-
You would expect that if _Science_ is going to publish an ostensibly peer-reviewed letter that there would need to besomething specific there. Yes - please Alina's RatG13 and Pangovirus are fake and SC2 is perfectly adapted BS. Ifit's Relman then GoF is gonna be in there. Very disappointed in Jessie Bloom - he admitted he hadn't looked at the science very closely - now he's going in.