Thread by @wtt_taylor

Adding to the list of things I never thought I would say - download this article now, before it gets retracted 🧵
nature.com/articles/s4159…

In this article, we revisit the argument for horse domestication and transport at the site of Botai, focusing on issues of tooth wear, tooth development, and interactions with bridle equipment - in other words, "bit wear."

In the paper, we identify skeletal features that form the basis of the argument for Botai riding, in wild specimens from Pleistocene N. America. We try to add some nuance to our understanding of horse dentition and development.

Based on our results, we suggest that natural specimens could have produced the same patterns observed at Botai, and outline a number of test criteria that could help answer this question further.

Immediately upon publishing this paper, bad things started happening. The first thing wasn't so bad: some senior scholars wrote a rebuttal to our paper, which you can read here: zenodo.org/record/5142604

Of course, I disagree with some of my colleagues' arguments, but discourse is the heart of science. We were ostensibly invited to also write a response, which we prepared in June.

In the meantime, a new editorial team sent the entire manuscript and responses out for a fresh round of peer review. We got some of the scariest and most hostile comments I've ever received as a young scientist - personal attacks, attacks on my credentials,

attacks on my motivations. Frustratingly, almost all of these comments focused on the content of the original, already-published manuscript and hardly even acknowledged our response piece.

Today, I was informed that, rather than publish the critique and our response to it, the editors at @SciReports are now considering retraction of the manuscript altogether, ostensibly because the methods we were critiquing were "not applied correctly."

Our initial manuscript was far from perfect. In particular, we made some ill-advised passing references to isotopes and proteins in the discussion section. However, the paper passed peer review with largely positive comments and minor revisions.

Overall, whether or not you agree with our interpretations or conclusions, I believe that the work is based in good science.

In the months since our Botai paper was published, I have received aggressive emails from senior scholars. I have been shunned socially. Some of my research partners have been pressured to stop collaborating with me.

But despite all that, I never expected that a published, peer-reviewed paper, conducted in good faith, and asking important questions, could or would be retracted in this way.

This makes science feel like a scary place, it makes me regret sticking my neck out, and makes me regret publishing with @SciReports.

Whatever happens, we have decided to publish our response online as an open-access preprint, which you can find here:

zenodo.org/record/5525426

In case the manuscript is actually retracted, we will republish it online as an open-access preprint. In the meantime, apparently, be careful what you say.

Thank you all for your kindness and support. It's been a long week. If you would like to share your thoughts on the paper or its retraction with the editors, the address is [e-mail]