4 ms·
I don't know anything about this situation, so this is hypothetical. Suppose that the editors who refused publication are personally convinced beyond a reasonab
by tlb 3y ago
I don't know anything about this situation, so this is hypothetical. Suppose that the editors who refused publication are personally convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt, perhaps because they know one or more of the victims personally. In that case, I think they have the moral right to refuse to have anything to do with him, like publishing work that he's a co-author of.
There is a (very small) number of people I refuse to have anything to do with, despite them not being convicted of anything. I mean, I'd still hit the brakes if they stepped in front of my car. But I wouldn't invest in a startup they were a co-founder of, which seems analogous to publishing a paper they're a co-author of.
Scientists sometimes talk as if certain journals have such a monopoly on a field that being banned from them is fatal to their career (and even to The Science.) But IDK, I've never felt like I can't read a paper if it wasn't published in a prestigious journal. The author should upload the paper to their website and email the link to colleagues, who can decide whether to read it or not.
- rasse 3y agoLet's say they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt. Does this constitute a reason to refuse their science altogether? And if so, then for how long (a question indirectly raised in the article)?
- tlb 3y agoI don't know what you mean by "refuse their science". Some editors refusing to publish a paper in their journals doesn't change anything about what's true or not true in nature. It doesn't prevent the authors from disseminating the information other ways, including the way most papers are found anyway: author websites, email, and Twitter. So it's a small perturbation in the flow of information. Science is quite resilient to such things.
- rasse 3y agoI agree that the facts don't change. However the editorial process becomes biased ad hominem and shifts away from scientific facts. Science and the people who benefit from science become the victims. The purpose of scientific journals is to provide an editorial process and peer review, not only to disseminate findings. In this regard, I don't believe author websites and Twitter compares.