(And note that none of the EA community members who were asked to review the paper came forward, even anonymously, to say that they were deceptive—which implies to me very strongly that the feedback was given on a paper that Emile was not listed as a co-author on, and would fully justify Cremer and Kemp not bringing up this now actually very misleading fact.)
Kudos for noticing this incongruency! I think I and others should have noticed confusion more here (even though many people did flag that Torres’s tweet could be misrepresenting what happened).
I’m unclear on what you mean—did someone who reviewed the paper inform you of this? If so, that would be private evidence that he was on the paper, though given that you’re an anonymous source claiming private information, I’d want to have someone who is not anonymous clarify what occurred and whose names were on the paper when it was reviewed, even if the identified individual didn’t disclose who the reviewer was.
(And note that none of the EA community members who were asked to review the paper came forward, even anonymously, to say that they were deceptive—which implies to me very strongly that the feedback was given on a paper that Emile was not listed as a co-author on, and would fully justify Cremer and Kemp not bringing up this now actually very misleading fact.)
Kudos for noticing this incongruency! I think I and others should have noticed confusion more here (even though many people did flag that Torres’s tweet could be misrepresenting what happened).
I’m unclear on what you mean—did someone who reviewed the paper inform you of this? If so, that would be private evidence that he was on the paper, though given that you’re an anonymous source claiming private information, I’d want to have someone who is not anonymous clarify what occurred and whose names were on the paper when it was reviewed, even if the identified individual didn’t disclose who the reviewer was.