Post #13275

Касательно вот этого срача: https://t.me/augmented_brain/13264 Стефания Спина не производит впечатления ученого, с которым можно вести конструктивную беседу, но я на всякий случай ответил: I respectfully disagree that the tone and assumptions expressed in my recent messages were not appropriate for professional scientific communication. I unfortunately do not have a copy of my most recent message because it was sent through the Frontiers system. But I can recollect. I noted that the processing of our manuscript took 4 months, and the result was desk rejection for a bogus reason. Only in the current letter your reasoning is clarified. I think that the proper scientific communication is: (1) communication and (2) scientifically justified communication. I did not follow Frontiers policies lately, but I believe that editors are not encouraged to behave arrogantly (= avoid communicating with the authors who have a false impression that their manuscript is seriously considered). And by the way I sent you multiple letters during this time period, and you responded only recently. I would like to briefly rebut your statement. First of all, please read what a perspective article is: Perspective articles present a viewpoint on a specific area of investigation. They should provide the following: Discuss current advances and future directions Clear presentation of the authors' perspective Accurate presentation and citations of other authors' work… > This assessment is not personal I do not understand what you mean by that. This manuscript was not sent to a review. It was rejected entirely based on your personal opinion. >It is based on scientific… There is no article type mismatch. Please read the definition of a perspective. The article presents a viewpoint -- check. It discusses the current advances and future directions (as a viewpoint). It contains an accurate presentation and citations of the relevant work. It includes personal insights and opinions (actually, minimally). And there are no overstated claims. What is overstated?? >…reads largely as a hybrid narrative review and position paper… "Position paper" is not a Frontiers article type. But, using your definition, perspectives are hybrids of a narrative review and position paper. Once again, to clarify: Position paper: "Perspective articles present a viewpoint... Clear presentation of the authors' perspective". This is an exact match to the article type definition. Narrative review: "Accurate presentation and citations of other authors' work". An exact match again. Extended didactic sections (anatomy, reflexes, disorders): This is called Introduction. Also a requirement. Conclusions that imply clinical effectiveness: Yes, clinical effectiveness is hypothesized and expressed as a viewpoint. We need to know what exactly you are objecting to to be able to revise. >…must clearly distinguish what is established evidence… In some cases therapeutic effects were confirmed. But we state that further research is needed. Where are the presumed false claims/overstatements? I think we clearly distinguish what is established evidence from what is proposed as hypothesis. > The statements are too definitive… OK. Let's review our "definitive" statements: … Here again the wording is very careful. There are no overstatements, and references are provided. >…This creates a risk of overgeneralization… What do you mean by "sufficiently separating"? The text clearly states what is stimulated in each particular case; references are provided. There is no text that validates suboccipital stimulation with some other approach. Let me quote this again: …. The references are only to this exact technique, not to something else. In conclusion, our article fits all the requirements for a perspective, it contains most of the references to relevant work and does not contain overstatements. Regarding the "professional and constructive" communication -- yes, of course. I've provided a rebuttal to your statements. You are more than welcome to prove that I am wrong.