Though Shaviv also admitted that Cook et al. correctly classified his abstracts based on their content, but claimed that he worded the text in a way to slip
it past the journal reviewers and editors.
And again with Shaviv, there is some dispute about the «wording» indicated in the article above, as if it wasn't playing by the rules, i.e. as Dana Nuccitelli implies above, «he worded the text in a way to slip
it past the journal reviewers and editors».
The fact that such errors slip
past journal reviewers is inexcusable.
Not exact matches
Many thanks go out to Catherine Bradshaw, editor, Bob McMahon,
past editor, the associate editors, the editorial board, authors and
reviewers of Prevention Science for their invaluable support and commitment to SPR and the
journal.
Writing collections of replications of
past papers is not the norm, but it is difficult to get published in
journals with a set of expected formats or because of high likelihood that one
reviewer does not like the implications or conclusions.