Abstract
Evolution. 2018 Oct;72(10):2267. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.13605. Two years ago, I published an “Editorial Comment” about an exchange of Technical Comments in our journal. For context, a Technical Comment is a paper that offers new analyses, criticisms, or alternative interpretations of findings in research papers recently published in Evolution. The first critical Technical Comment goes out for full peer review, but the author of the original paper is invited to submit a rejoinder Technical Comment. In this instance 2 years ago, following acceptance and online publication of the pair of Technical Comments in our journal, I received an expression of concern from the author of the first critical one, identifying aspects of the rejoinder to which he referred as fatally flawed. Such a situation following a Technical Comment exchange between authors had not happened before in my term, and I consulted with colleagues to devise a process for handling it. I had two experts (not authors on either paper) review the exchange as well as this new allegation, and based on their feedback, I wrote an Editorial Comment stating that the numerical results of the rejoinder were correct but that the conclusion regarding the particular software package discussed was overstated.
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: Evolution; international journal of organic evolution
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.
