Hi all:
I had this experience in a peer-review for an important statistics journal.
I was asked to review a methods paper and did the following (1) Proved mathematically that the fundamental estimation procedure was invalid and (2) provided a valid alternative. Despite this, and without any feedback to me refuting (1) above, the paper is now in press. My questions for you are
(A) Was the journal ethical in its action?
(B) Have any of you had like experiences?
Comments are welcome
Please reply as soon as possible.
Best wishes,
Jon
------------------------------
Jonathan Shuster
------------------------------