Thread by @Ayjchan

I'm aware of the @newrepublic review of our book VIRAL: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19. I don't have much to say about it because it isn't a review of VIRAL. It was an opinion on #OriginOfCovid dressed up as a book review.

See article by @thackerpd
disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/get-the-hell…

In order to formulate a response in defense of the book, there must be facts-based criticisms of the book's content, which do not exist in the @newrepublic review.

So how should I respond to a negative review that goes after the same old strawmen not represented in the book?

@newrepublic One scientific scenario I can compare this to is when you get a peer reviewer who clearly has a vendetta against a particular hypothesis. Instead of critiquing the data in the paper, goes after old arguments by other scientists, recommending rejection of the manuscript at hand.

@newrepublic In the above scenario, you hope the editor has the insightfulness to realize what's happening and not let the clearly biased reviewer prejudice the review process.

But if the editor and biased peer reviewer are buddies, you basically have to go to another journal for review.