Another bad day for science.

Three days ago, we asked the editorial board of Eurosurveillance for the status of our external peer review, which we submitted on Nov 27 last year.

Yesterday we got a reply. This is what they write:

"After careful evaluation and taking into consideration the guidance from a group of five experts in the field, we have decided not to consider your submission for publication in Eurosurveillance."

"Please note that and anonymised version of your submission was made available to the reviewers. Reviewers, however, noted that your manuscript was already in the public domain."

"They informed us about this and opted to name the authors for the purpose of the review to avoid ambiguity. We are sending the reviewers' comments below."

"Please note that editors, peer reviewers and authors shall not share any documents relating to manuscripts under consideration nor to those that have been rejected or accepted.
With kind regards,
The Eurosurveillance editors"

After this introductory letter, I was hoping to find the comments of the five experts. Normally, a paper is reviewed by at least TWO peers, usually THREE. In our case, there was only ONE!

The official position of Eurosurveillance can be found here:
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.5.2102041

Science ends where politics start. With journals like Eurosurveillance we can be sure science entered the political era.

For political scientists like @MarionKoopmans and @c_drosten this may be wonderful news, for real science this is another black day. Join us and free science from politics!

Or as @Bobby_Network network wrote: "People in the scientific community and outsiders clearly see this as a slap in their faces, a kamikaze-suicide-commando by Eurosurveillance in my honest opinion to discredit and humiliate every scientist on the globe."

Still, we were able to enlighten millions of people. To be precise, our site >23 million individual impressions [longer than 4 mins] from every corner of the world, achieved in 2 months. Our outreach on twitter was most probably even more.

If we had not publicly discussed our "external peer review process", it most probably would have vanished unnoticed leaving no imprint. We hope you now understand better what science is, and what it is not.

At your service,
ICSLS
https://cormandrostenreview.com/