@MarionKoopmans claims that not receiving a point-by point-reply from peer reviewers is the common process with journals.
This is untrue. A rejection of scientific work, always comes together with a list of arguments for rejection, known as a point-by-point peer review report.
This is untrue. A rejection of scientific work, always comes together with a list of arguments for rejection, known as a point-by-point peer review report.
https://twitter.com/MarionKoopmans/status/1366832702029185032
Our review went through the peer-review process and this implies that 2 or more (in our case 5) peer reviewers read our work and commented on it why it had to be rejected. We asked for these reports, but @Eurosurveillanc is unable to disclose them. Because they do not exist.
In October 2019, we asked for the peer review reports of the Corman-Drosten PCR Test paper, because we suspected that it was not peer reviewed. -->Remember that the Corman-Drosten paper was submitted in january 21st, accepted on Januari 22nd, and online on January 23rd.
Back then, we received almost the same letter as we received last week. It was copy pastw work, which took them almost 4 weeks!
Worse, @Eurosurveillanc does not have an open scientific policy and hides important scientific information for the public.
Worse, @Eurosurveillanc does not have an open scientific policy and hides important scientific information for the public.
This is what happens when EU politicians do science. It is as tragic as it is horrible. The end of science is neigh.
It proves that science and politics should be completely seperated, like state and church are seperated.
Free science from politics and politicians.
It proves that science and politics should be completely seperated, like state and church are seperated.
Free science from politics and politicians.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
