To be fair, editors have a right to set the boundaries for article acceptance. Would be useful to know the specific claims/objections
-
-
-
You are looking at the entirely of the email. So that's as specific as it got.
-
That seems rather unfair. Clearly didn't go to peer review. Editor should detail criticism so authors can revise or consider other journals
-
You are have a way too rosy picture of science about matters left-wingers don't like. :)
-
Never been accused of having a rosy outlook before. You CAN be a leftist AND believe in clear argumentation, thoughtful discussion and data
-
Of course you can. :) I meant that your view of scientific progress for ideas left-wingers (most scientists) dislike is too optimistic.
-
I'm not saying people will/should change their minds. Only that discussions about controversial ideas are valuable for developing new theory
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The urls of not of any use I take it.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Oh noes. The survey! But ok, I've changed them. :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Oh noes! You tried to do the wrong kind of science! Not allowed. Very bad. Must be inclusive & safe space compliant. No triggering.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Apparently, the academy is not the home of the brave...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Presumably it contradicted the current political zeitgeist
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We are doomed.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
At least the editor is honest about it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.