"Steve Bennett" wrote
Britannica
also made repeated attempts to obtain from Nature the original
data on which the
study's conclusions were based. We invited Nature's
> editors and management to meet with us to discuss our analysis, but they
> declined.
If true, that's very poor on Nature's part.
Well, I have read the detailed analyses of errors, with the names of the
reviewers, in a document a link to which was posted to this list. I wonder
what more they wanted.
There's an odd idea in the EB document. They had 'peer review', except that
of course it wasn't: those reviewing would for the most part be of greater
academic distinction than those writing the articles. Now they want to
second-guess all that. But not by getting a 'better' peer review done.
More by meeting with Nature, and trying for retractions.
Rather short-sighted, in fact, in that alienating Nature probably is more
likely to make it repeat the exercise.
Charles