WJM writes (See Nick Matzke – Book burner): “Does Liz think that Nick, not having even read the papers, has a sound reason to reach out to the editorial board and “warn” them about publishing work he hasn’t even read?”
Liddle responds: “As much right as Springer had to offer to publish them, having not read them. And indeed to rescind the offer when alerted as to the nature of the conference.”
Huh? Lest anyone forget, Springer’s publication decision was not in the early stages. They were on the verge of sending the book out the door. It already had a Library of Congress number for goodness sake. Yet, Liddle suggests that Springer had never read the papers and was in just as much ignorance about their content as Nick, and they were alerted to the papers’ content only by Nick’s heroic efforts.** “Idiotic” was the first word that comes to mind when I read this.
I have known for a long time that Liddle is nice enough when she spews her nonsense, but she will say literally anything, no matter how stupid, when she has determined to defend the indefensible, which she is doing here.
Dr. Liddle, there is still time. You can still redeem yourself by condemning Nick’s efforts to suppress the publication of the papers he never read. I predict you won’t.
Liddle writes: “I’ve written to journals myself when I’ve thought that a paper did not meet the rigor expected of that journal.”
Dr. Liddle, did you read the paper first? If you did read it first, then what does that incident have to do with what Nick did?
**Update: Julianbre brings new information to the table: ” The book had been peer reviewed by two reviewers at Springer and was ready for publication. You think Springer publishes books, especially ones that cost over $100.00 with out even reading them? Really? Springer pulled the book after the panda people contacted them and threatened a boycott of their company if they went ahead with the publication of Biological information–New Perspectives.”
[Comments to this post should be placed in the combox of the original post]