If they were indeed forced from removing a coauthor from their paper, it doesn’t seem to me that they’re being deceptive when they don’t mention that coauthor.
“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.
Yeah I guess it would depend on the particulars, for example if it’s more like they received an authoritative order not to mention Torres wrt the paper or more like a colleague or peer suggested it? Not sure.
You still haven’t removed their deadname from your post. I notified you of why its problematic in the thread up above where people are deciding to thought police me for correcting you. I’m sure you just missed it in the clutter.
If they were indeed forced from removing a coauthor from their paper, it doesn’t seem to me that they’re being deceptive when they don’t mention that coauthor.
“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!
What about when they don’t disclose that that might have influenced the reception of their paper?
Yeah I guess it would depend on the particulars, for example if it’s more like they received an authoritative order not to mention Torres wrt the paper or more like a colleague or peer suggested it? Not sure.
You still haven’t removed their deadname from your post. I notified you of why its problematic in the thread up above where people are deciding to thought police me for correcting you. I’m sure you just missed it in the clutter.