Post 22: What the "Defenders of Science" Miss About the Purpose of Scientific Peer-Review and the Open Dialogue: When You Censor or Support the Censorship of Dissident Voices, You Are In the Wrong
Post 22: What the "Defenders of Science" Miss About the Purpose of Scientific Peer-Review and the Open Dialogue: When You Censor or Support the Censorship of Dissident Voices, You Are In the Wrong
xavierfigueroa.substack.com
It is best to debate the merits and deficiencies of published investigations in the open, without resorting to editorial backdoors to “clean the record”. Editorial retractions are unaccountable.
Post 22: What the "Defenders of Science" Miss About the Purpose of Scientific Peer-Review and the Open Dialogue: When You Censor or Support the Censorship of Dissident Voices, You Are In the Wrong
Post 22: What the "Defenders of Science" Miss…
Post 22: What the "Defenders of Science" Miss About the Purpose of Scientific Peer-Review and the Open Dialogue: When You Censor or Support the Censorship of Dissident Voices, You Are In the Wrong
It is best to debate the merits and deficiencies of published investigations in the open, without resorting to editorial backdoors to “clean the record”. Editorial retractions are unaccountable.