3 ms·

That would indeed be problematic, but is not what happened here. To quote the article: > Meghan Daum: Why did you choose to publish in Quillette? > Larry Cahi

by Faark 7y ago

That would indeed be problematic, but is not what happened here. To quote the article: > Meghan Daum: Why did you choose to publish in Quillette? > Larry Cahill: Because the editor asked me. [Others] didn’t ask me. When I contacted Nature saying I felt they needed to do something to undo the damage they had done with that review, they did say I could submit a letter to the editor, but I chose not to do that. But when [Quillette editor Claire Lehmann] asked me to write a piece, I said sure.

lliamander 7y ago
I had that particular line in mind when I wrote my comment, and I stand by my statement. The most that Nature offered was to maybe publish a letter to the editor. A letter to the editor is not the same as an article in the same publication.
- Faark 7y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nature offer the letter because it is the standard way to respond in such situations? I didn't read this as them denying to publish something more extensive because of the topic. They obviously didn't go far beyond that & help him create it, but I'd not expect them to. I do expect this to be something the ideological opposition would do further their agenda. And all I want is people to take responsibility and resist such a deal, unless they actually of what that group stands for. Don't make a deal with the devil. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    > Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nature offer the letter because it is the standard way to respond in such situations? Standard? Probably. Sufficient? Likely not. Accepting a letter to the editor would give Cahill a platform to share his disagreement, without Nature having to actually admit error or fault. I think that an error like this probably should require some sort of acknowledgement from the original article's authors and/or the editorial staff. > Don't make a deal with the devil. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. Quillette is hardly the devil.

by Faark 7y ago

lliamander 7y ago

I had that particular line in mind when I wrote my comment, and I stand by my statement. The most that Nature offered was to maybe publish a letter to the editor. A letter to the editor is not the same as an article in the same publication.

Faark 7y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nature offer the letter because it is the standard way to respond in such situations? I didn't read this as them denying to publish something more extensive because of the topic. They obviously didn't go far beyond that & help him create it, but I'd not expect them to. I do expect this to be something the ideological opposition would do further their agenda. And all I want is people to take responsibility and resist such a deal, unless they actually of what that group stands for. Don't make a deal with the devil. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
- lliamander 7y ago
  > Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nature offer the letter because it is the standard way to respond in such situations? Standard? Probably. Sufficient? Likely not. Accepting a letter to the editor would give Cahill a platform to share his disagreement, without Nature having to actually admit error or fault. I think that an error like this probably should require some sort of acknowledgement from the original article's authors and/or the editorial staff. > Don't make a deal with the devil. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend. Quillette is hardly the devil.