Back

Not surprisingly, the appeal was rejected, once again stating that the material is outside the scope of what
@eLife will publish. Again: fair enough.

But the editors couldn't leave it at that. They provided some additional "arguments." The first was: "this has been said before." Which is provably wrong. Why would you say this, if you had actually engaged with the argument in my paper? Well, you would not, which shows that there was no such engagement. What is the job of an editor again?