As a (minor) point related to this discussion, I want to flag that Zoe never got back to me after this interaction.
[Edit: This no longer applies – Zoe and I had a call and she could indeed convince me. See here for my update. Also, I want to flag that after it came out that Torres’ involvement wasn’t as a co-author at the time when Zoe faced criticism of the draft, it anyway wouldn’t make sense to assume that she’d be misleading anyone about any sort of info. I didn’t have a call with her to vet her or anything because that wasn’t needed. I just took the opportunity to learn more about what happened before the publication of the paper and so I can post an update to this comment here which would be unfair to Zoe if left unaltered.]
It’s very possible that this may just be due to not using FB frequently (I messaged her on FB). Even so, I think it’s bad form to pocket the credit (e.g., I at first somewhat changed my mind about a comment where I initially voiced skepticism about something, and could imagine that others updated in the same direction) for having specific info by saying that one is going to share it privately and then not sharing it privately.
For context, the specific claim under question was me saying that I’m skeptical that she presented an accurate view of the pushback she received on publishing the paper.
As soon as there’s some evidence for non-optimal integrity (the evidence brought forward here about Torres IMO qualifies if it is accurate – though I wouldn’t necessarily trust Torres to represent accurately what happened), then it becomes also an issue of game theory rather than just epistemics whether to give someone the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, if anyone else has talked to Zoe about the topic or if Zoe herself wants to share more about the situation, we could more easily decide what’s going and if her initial account of the pushback against the paper was roughly accurate.
Hi Lukas—I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you, I think this should be considered bad form. tbh I cannot recall why I didn’t, I just remember having been on many calls about this (realising this approach wasn’t scalable) and simply wanting to take a break from this paper after many months of it taking emotional effort (and I am indeed rarely on FB and must have fogotten to reply). I would have hoped for you to ping me via email if it was important to you! I’m still happy to have a call to answer your questions.
If some of these other people you had calls with about the topic could have posted on the same thread or same comment section and said something like “Talked to Zoe (or Luke) and they have info they can’t disclose publicly that underscores their account and it seemed to all make sense to me” – that would have been enough to take care of my curiosity and skepticism!
At this point, the main thing I’m curious about is your thoughts on Torres’ involvement (edit, just saw that you made a long comment on that!). I don’t think a call is necessary for that because it seems that after all the speculations in the OP and this comment section, a public comment from you or Luke would probably be best rather than private calls.
That said, if you for some reason prefer to explain some things only in a private call and want someone to report back to the community with their overall impression and updates (positive or negative depending on their feelings on the call and without sharing an of the specifics), I’m happy to volunteer for that!
Upvoted in part for the “if it is accurate” qualification—we don’t know if in fact Torres was on the paper, given that our only info comes from an extremely unreliable source (Torres).
(Other admittedly speculative evidence is this tweet )
I think it would be good to get clarification from Cremer or Kemp about this, since as I have said it seems like a key piece of information.
As a (minor) point related to this discussion, I want to flag that Zoe never got back to me after this interaction.
[Edit: This no longer applies – Zoe and I had a call and she could indeed convince me. See here for my update. Also, I want to flag that after it came out that Torres’ involvement wasn’t as a co-author at the time when Zoe faced criticism of the draft, it anyway wouldn’t make sense to assume that she’d be misleading anyone about any sort of info. I didn’t have a call with her to vet her or anything because that wasn’t needed. I just took the opportunity to learn more about what happened before the publication of the paper and so I can post an update to this comment here which would be unfair to Zoe if left unaltered.]
It’s very possible that this may just be due to not using FB frequently (I messaged her on FB). Even so, I think it’s bad form to pocket the credit (e.g., I at first somewhat changed my mind about a comment where I initially voiced skepticism about something, and could imagine that others updated in the same direction) for having specific info by saying that one is going to share it privately and then not sharing it privately.
For context, the specific claim under question was me saying that I’m skeptical that she presented an accurate view of the pushback she received on publishing the paper.
As soon as there’s some evidence for non-optimal integrity (the evidence brought forward here about Torres IMO qualifies if it is accurate – though I wouldn’t necessarily trust Torres to represent accurately what happened), then it becomes also an issue of game theory rather than just epistemics whether to give someone the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, if anyone else has talked to Zoe about the topic or if Zoe herself wants to share more about the situation, we could more easily decide what’s going and if her initial account of the pushback against the paper was roughly accurate.
Hi Lukas—I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you, I think this should be considered bad form. tbh I cannot recall why I didn’t, I just remember having been on many calls about this (realising this approach wasn’t scalable) and simply wanting to take a break from this paper after many months of it taking emotional effort (and I am indeed rarely on FB and must have fogotten to reply). I would have hoped for you to ping me via email if it was important to you! I’m still happy to have a call to answer your questions.
Thanks!
If some of these other people you had calls with about the topic could have posted on the same thread or same comment section and said something like “Talked to Zoe (or Luke) and they have info they can’t disclose publicly that underscores their account and it seemed to all make sense to me” – that would have been enough to take care of my curiosity and skepticism!
At this point, the main thing I’m curious about is your thoughts on Torres’ involvement (edit, just saw that you made a long comment on that!). I don’t think a call is necessary for that because it seems that after all the speculations in the OP and this comment section, a public comment from you or Luke would probably be best rather than private calls.
That said, if you for some reason prefer to explain some things only in a private call and want someone to report back to the community with their overall impression and updates (positive or negative depending on their feelings on the call and without sharing an of the specifics), I’m happy to volunteer for that!
Upvoted in part for the “if it is accurate” qualification—we don’t know if in fact Torres was on the paper, given that our only info comes from an extremely unreliable source (Torres).
(Other admittedly speculative evidence is this tweet )
I think it would be good to get clarification from Cremer or Kemp about this, since as I have said it seems like a key piece of information.