I don't know what my favorite part is. I'm torn between the part where co-authors were unable to access datasets for months (and never did get them in the end),

I don't know what my favorite part is. I'm torn between the part where co-authors were unable to access datasets for months (and never did get them in the end), the part where "trolls and Stanford University professors" were cast as villains who attack the noble science of criminology, and the part where the journal editors avoided following journal policies and instead launched a corrupt hunt for a whistleblower. > "I never worked with (or even saw) any version of the data," Dr. Johnson wrote about Johnson et al. (2011). That's not good scientific method, is it? Criminology is already on extremely poor philosophical foundations, and now we see that it's also a poorly-practiced science with nepotistic and corrupt methodologies.