Abstract
Proc. R. Soc. B 285 , 20180092 (Published online 21 February 2018) ([doi:10.1098/rspb.2018.0092][1]) In Arslan et al .’s reply to the commentary by Woodley of Menie et al ., the authors were reacting to an earlier version of their commentary than the one that was published. They only … [1]: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0092
Highlights
In Arslan et al.’s reply to the commentary by Woodley of Menie et al, the authors were reacting to an earlier version of their commentary than the one that was published
The participation of the original authors in peer review of a commentary is journal policy and the reply to the wrong version was an honest mistake on the part of the journal
This means that the sequence of arguments and counter-arguments became jumbled and all three quotations of the commentary were edited out of the revised and published version
Summary
In Arslan et al.’s reply to the commentary by Woodley of Menie et al, the authors were reacting to an earlier version of their commentary than the one that was published. Cite this article: Arslan RC et al 2018 Correction to: reply to Woodley of Menie et al Proc. Correction to: reply to Woodley of Menie et al Ruben C.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
