Scientific American avoids, she explained, “running direct rebuttals of earlier articles. This is a standard practice in most magazines to avoid being too self-

Scientific American avoids, she explained, “running direct rebuttals of earlier articles. This is a standard practice in most magazines to avoid being too self-referential, and so each article stands on its own.” Probably the laziest reject I've ever read. If she wanted him to rework some points, I guess it could be done, but rejecting it really sends a message.