Scholarlink

<p>Lior Pachter’s response to my Editorial (Warrant in J Comp Physiol A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-025-01745-6">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-025-01745-6</a>, 2025)—which details the recent public attacks on the integrity of Australian neuroethologist Mandyam Srinivasan—does little more than accuse me of writing a long series of ad hominem attacks against him and Laura Luebbert. I find this accusation very difficult to reconcile with what I actually wrote, and I leave it to the readers of my Editorial to decide for themselves whether I am guilty of this or not. Regardless of this, Pachter fails to address, or refute, the reason I wrote my Editorial in the first place—namely, to decry the manner in which he and Luebbert raised their concerns about Srinivasan’s work. Thus, the conclusion of my Editorial remains unaltered—Luebbert’s and Pachter’s unjust public assassination of Srinivasan’s reputation falls vastly short of the standards of academic decency expected of a respectful scientific discourse between peers.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

My plea for academic decency remains unchanged: a response to Lior Pachter

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月8日

查看全文
  • Eric J. Warrant

摘要

Lior Pachter’s response to my Editorial (Warrant in J Comp Physiol A https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-025-01745-6, 2025)—which details the recent public attacks on the integrity of Australian neuroethologist Mandyam Srinivasan—does little more than accuse me of writing a long series of ad hominem attacks against him and Laura Luebbert. I find this accusation very difficult to reconcile with what I actually wrote, and I leave it to the readers of my Editorial to decide for themselves whether I am guilty of this or not. Regardless of this, Pachter fails to address, or refute, the reason I wrote my Editorial in the first place—namely, to decry the manner in which he and Luebbert raised their concerns about Srinivasan’s work. Thus, the conclusion of my Editorial remains unaltered—Luebbert’s and Pachter’s unjust public assassination of Srinivasan’s reputation falls vastly short of the standards of academic decency expected of a respectful scientific discourse between peers.