Thread by @Ayjchan

One year later, the @Nature pangolin paper has finally been corrected, acknowledging (but refusing to publish) our analysis @shingheizhan

Their correction involves 1 figure, 2 tables, 1 new metagenomic dataset, 1 new PCR sequencing dataset & 6 sequences.
nature.com/articles/s4158…

@Nature @shingheizhan I'm not sure this saga has done anything to

(1) Deter misattribution/mislabeling of samples, incorrectly described composite figures, missing key data etc. in papers at top journals

(2) Incentivize independent analysis aimed at reproducing studies published in top journals

@Nature @shingheizhan The next time a mysterious outbreak occurs, will we see a repeat performance of inaccurately written papers published in top journals and the dismissal of independent analyses demonstrating that these studies are not reproducible/accurate based on the available data?

@Nature @shingheizhan What exactly is the protocol here? Should we submit this screenshot from the @Nature correction to @bioRxiv to let them know our manuscript has been peer reviewed and its claims have been verified by Nature?

@Nature @shingheizhan @biorxiv Hi @biorxivpreprint what should we do about our preprint? @Nature sent it through peer review but refused to publish it although one year later they issued a correction on one of their papers completely verifying all of our scientific claims.
biorxiv.org/content/10.110…