Evolution. 2018 Oct;72(10):2267. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo. 13605. Two years ago, I published an “Editorial Comment” about an exchange of Technical Comments in our journal. For context, a Technical Comment is a paper that offers new analyses, criticisms, or alternative interpretations of findings in research papers recently published in Evolution. The first critical Technical Comment goes out for full peer review, but the author of the original paper is invited to submit a rejoinder Technical Comment. In this instance 2 years ago, following acceptance and online publication of the pair of Technical Comments in our journal, I received an expression of concern from the author of the first critical one, identifying aspects of the rejoinder to which he referred as fatally flawed. Such a situation following a Technical Comment exchange between authors had not happened before in my term, and I consulted with colleagues to devise a process for handling it. I had two experts (not authors on either paper) review the exchange as well as this new allegation, and based on their feedback, I wrote an Editorial Comment stating that the numerical results of the rejoinder were correct but that the conclusion regarding the particular software package discussed was overstated. After discussion with the rejoinder’s authors, discussion with the current editor-in-chief, and further consideration, I have concluded that my approach to the Editorial Comment was wrong and lacked transparency. I did not give the authors of the rejoinder the opportunity to themselves address the aspects of the paper identified as problematic by the after-the-fact reviewers, nor to challenge the conclusion, but instead simply ended the process via this Editorial Comment. The rejoinder authors should have had the opportunity to address the concerns themselves. Transparency is especially important when there is no way for editors to account for unconscious biases, too. As such, I have concluded that the approach I took in the previous Editorial Comment was incorrect. I offer my apologies to the authors of both the Rejoinder as well as to the author of the original Technical Comment.

中文翻译：

---

编辑评论的更新

进化。2018 年 10 月；72(10):2267。https://doi.org/10.1111/evo。13605. 两年前，我在我们的期刊上发表了一篇关于技术评论交流的“编辑评论”。就上下文而言，技术评论是一篇论文，它对最近发表在 Evolution 上的研究论文中的发现提供新的分析、批评或替代解释。第一个重要的技术评论会进行完整的同行评审，但原始论文的作者被邀请提交反驳技术评论。在 2 年前的这个例子中，在我们期刊接受并在线发表了这对技术评论后，我收到了第一个批评性评论的作者表达的关注，指出他提到的反驳中存在致命缺陷的方面。在我的任期内，作者之间的技术评论交流之后的这种情况从未发生过，我咨询了同事以制定处理它的流程。我让两位专家（不是两篇论文的作者）审查了交换以及这个新指控，根据他们的反馈，我写了一篇社论评论，指出反驳的数字结果是正确的，但关于特定软件的结论讨论的包被夸大了。在与反驳的作者讨论后，与现任主编讨论，并进一步考虑后，我得出结论，我对编辑评论的方法是错误的，缺乏透明度。我没有让反驳的作者有机会自己解决被事后审稿人认为有问题的论文的各个方面，也没有对结论提出质疑，而是通过这篇编辑评论简单地结束了这个过程。反驳作者应该有机会自己解决这些问题。当编辑也无法解释无意识的偏见时，透明度尤其重要。因此，我得出结论，我在之前的社论评论中采用的方法是不正确的。我向 Rejoinder 的作者以及原始技术评论的作者表示歉意。反驳作者应该有机会自己解决这些问题。当编辑也无法解释无意识的偏见时，透明度尤其重要。因此，我得出结论，我在之前的社论评论中采用的方法是不正确的。我向 Rejoinder 的作者以及原始技术评论的作者表示歉意。反驳作者应该有机会自己解决这些问题。当编辑也无法解释无意识的偏见时，透明度尤其重要。因此，我得出结论，我在之前的社论评论中采用的方法是不正确的。我向 Rejoinder 的作者以及原始技术评论的作者表示歉意。