Pep Pàmies, Editor at Nature Materials, has commented on this blog prolifically as Pep. He later apologized and insisted in his note (“On my comments on Lévy’s blog note“) that the note and all of his comments had been made in personal capacity. Philip Moriarty provided an excellent response.
There is one aspect of the note that Philip does not address. Pep wrote:
Nature Materials gladly considered for peer review Levy’s Correspondence detailing scientific concerns on Stellacci’s work published in 2004 in the journal. The outcome of the peer-review process, which I know for a fact that it was carried out appropriately, was clear-cut: sufficient technical arguments were raised against publication of the Correspondence. Lévy stated that the process was unfair because reviewers did not have the appropriate expertise. This is false.
Pàmies comments on the peer review process of stripy revisited and uses arguments of authority based on confidential information – available to him as an Editor at Nature Materials -.
Pàmies – in personal capacity -writes that the reviewers reports (July to September 2009) included “sufficient technical arguments […] against publication of the Correspondence” but, unfortunately, Nature Materials does not allow those reports to be published and therefore the existence and validity of those arguments, if they exist, cannot be discussed.
I did ask for authorization to share this information back in December but Vincent Dusastre – writing as Chief Editor of Nature Materials – replied the following:
As for your request to publish our decision and referees’ reports I am afraid that we are tied by a confidentiality agreement with our reviewers so I cannot give you the green light on this matter. Of course I cannot prevent you from posting this confidential information but it would be without our consent.