LAUSR

Debate is fundamental to scientific discourse. At some journals, a researcher whose work is treated critically can assume a right-of-reply, to debate and rebut the criticism. Sometimes further replies and rebuttals are added to extend the exchange. These pieces could potentially be incisive, but they are hardly ever subject to the same rigorous peer review as the original work, and they rarely make important contributions. Too often, the right-of-reply elicits a generic opinion piece that seems focused more on reputation-management than on science. To the extent that readers engage, it may be partly for the ‘sport’ of seeing research teams facing off, with the frayed mix of pseudo-objectivity and strained politeness that typifies such exchanges. The right-of-reply becomes a trite routine that tends to protract and personalize debates, with little prospect of resolution.