Our latest editorial reports the context and outcome of our investigation on this paper on mentorship, and explains changes to our editorial processes.
36
86
205
Replies
@NatureComms
The paper has been examined by the doctors of the faith and been retracted for heresy. Authors will have their careers burned at the stake for producing results at odds with church doctrine.
0
0
25
@NatureComms
Happy with this, but unhappy with the explanation about 'manuscripts with sensitive research'. The authors concluded something out of the scope of their data. That's the first thing we teach our students. How that was mentioned by the reviewers but not fully addressed?
4
0
18
@NatureComms
@bahadorbahrami
They ultimately retracted *ahem* 'CENSORED' this paper after a post-publication review! :)
2
0
40
@NatureComms
@DaniSBassett
Cannot wait until my paper comes out it will be eye opening. In sum, the transparency of science will be enhanced 😃
0
0
1
@NatureComms
Why not just have the lead woman author modify the description of the constructs and interpretation of the findings as opposed to retraction? The big problem was not the data but the framing & interpretation. And what’s up with the reviewers and editor not catching it?
3
1
26
@NatureComms
@NatureComms
"apologise for any unintended harm" & "show your commitment to equity & inclusion" by supporting our initiative for a Special Issue dedicated to research by women:
6
7
18
@NatureComms
So now only interpretation that agrees with whatever political flavor is en vogue at the moment can still be published? Ridiculous! Only errors in the actual data or fraud should lead to retraction! Any scientist reading a paper is more than capable of thinking for themselves!
0
0
11
@NatureComms
Did anyone hear from the authors in this process, or despite all the flaws in the study, is this a no self-defense execution?
1
0
0
@NatureComms
Yes, sir. Don’t publish anything that would help women out. The patriarchy is alive and well in
@NatureComms
.
0
0
0
@NatureComms
@morenorse
Right decision after a story that shows why we should scrap the current antiquated system of peer review altogether.
1
0
2
@NatureComms
Undermining science with more BIAS BIAS.
As long at it generates clickbaity “correlation = discrimination” headlines, right?
0
0
4
@NatureComms
This sets a terrible precedent, and shows how research that contradicts the political biases of woke scientists can be taken down if enough of them make a fuss. The social sciences have no credibility and the public is right to distrust the experts in these fields.
0
0
7