3 ms·
> That's how it is supposed to work. How, exactly, is it supposed to work? If you are asked to respond to allegations, yet those allegations are not shared wi
by mcphage 6y ago
> That's how it is supposed to work.
How, exactly, is it supposed to work? If you are asked to respond to allegations, yet those allegations are not shared with you, what are they actually asking you to do?
- jeffbee 6y agoIn the article it says the company wanted the author to retract their paper. Doesn't sound like they were being vague about it.
- black_puppydog 6y ago"Retract the paper" not an allegation though. It is a demand / conclusion of a decision process. It doesn't allow any response/defense, and you're right, they don't seem to have been vague about not wanting any of that.
- mirekrusin 6y agoSomething fishy about submitting paper with 1 day notice before its deadline when internal review process takes 2 weeks - she must have known the drill as she published dosens of papers before at G. Approval sounds like somebody's mistake maybe, not awaiting for review feedback for submission and submitting - feels strange. Especially when followed by threat of leaving company if identities of people consulted in review process is not revealed, at the same time being involved in litigation against G while on G's payroll etc. It's like you have good Silicon Valley espisode just from that, I'm not sure if I buy total innocence here.
- mcphage 6y agoSorry, I was talking about the commenter you were responding to above, who described being asked to respond to allegations without being told what those were.