“Deceptive” might be too strong because it may not have been the intention to mislead.
But the post definitely is misleading without that information. The reported reception of the paper comes across in a very different light if you know Torres was a co-author.
One, in giving comments, people may have been responding in their feedback to Torres, who (as can be seen from their social media presence) is extremely quarrelsome and seems to habitually mislead.
Two, objections to the project being undertaken could have been influenced by Torres’s involvement, and rightly so in my opinion.
Three, knowing Torres was an author updates me towards thinking that earlier versions of the paper were more inflammatory/defamatory than the final version.
“Deceptive” might be too strong because it may not have been the intention to mislead.
But the post definitely is misleading without that information. The reported reception of the paper comes across in a very different light if you know Torres was a co-author.
One, in giving comments, people may have been responding in their feedback to Torres, who (as can be seen from their social media presence) is extremely quarrelsome and seems to habitually mislead.
Two, objections to the project being undertaken could have been influenced by Torres’s involvement, and rightly so in my opinion.
Three, knowing Torres was an author updates me towards thinking that earlier versions of the paper were more inflammatory/defamatory than the final version.
Fair enough!