Hacker News Reader

Let's say they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt. Does this constitute a reason to refuse their science altogether? And if so, then for how long (a question indirectly raised in the article)?

View on HN

I don't know what you mean by "refuse their science". Some editors refusing to publish a paper in their journals doesn't change anything about what's true or not true in nature. It doesn't prevent the authors from disseminating the information other ways, including the way most papers are found anyway: author websites, email, and Twitter. So it's a small perturbation in the flow of information. Science is quite resilient to such things.

I agree that the facts don't change. However the editorial process becomes biased ad hominem and shifts away from scientific facts. Science and the people who benefit from science become the victims.

The purpose of scientific journals is to provide an editorial process and peer review, not only to disseminate findings. In this regard, I don't believe author websites and Twitter compares.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com