Even with a good reason?
-
-
Yes that would be my advice, IF the field is sufficiently large that the odds of them being naturally invited are low.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @chrisdc77 @maria_ndrnh and
If your paper is criticising their work or a program of research they contribute heavily to them being naturally invited is surely high?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @chrisdc77 and
If they are a big name and your criticise their tiny corner of the field, it's almost guaranteed that they will be invited IMHO.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @chrisdc77 and
As an editor I probably wouldn't. Might get one of their (less invested but knowledgeable) former trainees
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @DrGBuckingham @o_guest and
I'm curious what reasons would justify exclusion. If a paper argues someone was wrong, I'd like to hear what that someone has to say.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @willjharrison @o_guest and
This is my view, but is seems that there's a lot of non-science interpersonal reasons and unethical behaviour out there
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DrGBuckingham @o_guest and
Yep, and e.g. prior threats of ruining career seems like a good reason, but that must be highly uncommon, and one of very few good reasons?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @willjharrison @o_guest and
I suspect that thinking bad stuff (which people often don't want to talk about in professional forum) is highly uncommon is a slippery slope
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DrGBuckingham @willjharrison and
I don't think it's uncommon either
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.