> The only valid point of contention here is the demanding removal of her name on the paper. My understanding is that the review required a full retraction of

> The only valid point of contention here is the demanding removal of her name on the paper. My understanding is that the review required a full retraction of the paper so that it wouldn't be published, not just removing her name. And your game theory view leaves out that she's in the middle of a lawsuit now, and the first thing her lawyer would have said is to stop talking publicly.