Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
Richard Sever  Ⓤ
Authors of disputed “uncanny” 2019-nCoV preprint to voluntarily withdraw preprint: "It was not our intention to feed into the conspiracy theories...we appreciate the criticisms...and will get back with a revised version”
We are currently witnessing a major epidemic caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019- nCoV). The evolution of 2019-nCoV remains elusive. We found 4 insertions in the spike glycoprotein (S) which...
bioRxiv bioRxiv @biorxivpreprint
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
Eugene Valkov 🇬🇧 🇺🇸 3. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @cshperspectives
It is worth pointing out that no editor worth their salt would ever permit such nonsense to go into public domain. It was not their intention to feed into conspiracy theories? Seriously?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Richard Sever  Ⓤ 22 h
Odgovor korisniku/ci @eugenevalkov
That’s probably true. But in this era of predatory journals there are editors who would - see for example this ‘peer reviewed’ paper so I suspect someone would have.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Ivan 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @cshperspectives
Are you going to put a notice of withdrawal on the page?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Richard Sever  Ⓤ 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @BaxterTwi
it is in progress
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
JoiningUnrelatedDots 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @cshperspectives @PriyankaPulla
Interesting comments below the post. Helpful for laypersons like me
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Kevin McKernan 1. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @cshperspectives @pathogenomenick
Wall clock on debunk with preprint... Days. That is an accelerated review system! Meanwhile ZeroHedge is deplatformed for linking to this only exacerbating the conspiracy via Streisand effect. Censorship doesn’t work.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Sharad Kumar 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @cshperspectives
So, the open expert peer review actually worked in this case without the need for editors and the ‘secret privileged reviewers’!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Colin Mann 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @molregulation @cshperspectives
Only because it's such a hot topic. I can't see a normal pre-print receiving this kind of attention.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Trevor Bedford 1. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @cshperspectives
This is good. Seems like a useful feature for bioRxiv to have a “retracted” banner. The way that there’s currently a banner for a revision.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
Richard Sever  Ⓤ 2. velj
Odgovor korisniku/ci @trvrb
There is (or will be in this case as it’s in progress)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"