On the contrary. He did a good job given the position JFR editors put him in. He explained clearly why the study being presented is simply nonsense. I actually learned something from his comments. I would have been way more critical on the reexamining authors. BTW – the authors of the other paper being re-examined didn’t even bother to attend and provide comments. JFR needs to be careful with these kind of projects/strategies if they want to be relevant. This creates unnecessary controversy and drama, which of course EJMR likes….To me, this seems a waste of everyone’s time.
100% agreed! As long as they do it in an appropriate way. My impression was, given the comments RB made, that the re-examining authors were out of line. That's why it took so long.
I actually hoped that TL would deliver the rebuttal. That would have been quite a show and some fireworks. DC was too nice given what the re-examining authors did.