Also: "errors were recently discovered [...] following a letter we received from a reader on February 12, 2017." No credit to the reader?!
So the journal was not pushed and does indeed willingly want to improve this article. That's something.
-
-
umm, I told the journal I would be blogging about how journals responded. Not sure that counts as forced though.
-
Regardless, it seems off they don't acknowledge the "reader" or at least explain they prefer to be anonymous. As is, it looks like spin.

-
yeah...in his original blog post addenda it took awhile to acknowledge our preprint. People called him out in the comments.
-
Hello. I am a reader and I did contact the authors on that date.
-
Did you wish to be anonymous?
-
I assume no, given you replied here. Did you wish to be acknowledged by name?
-
if there is some kind of cash reward like in police films then I do want to be, if there isn't then I don't really care
-
I assumed he didn't mind if I mentioned him because he has repeatedly publicly criticized Wansink:https://peerj.com/preprints/3137/
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.