But what are they?
Editor in chief and Senior VP Mariette DiChristina explained on Twitter
Re blog inquiry:
@sciam is a publication for discovering science. The post was not appropriate for this area & was therefore removed.
And got what is apparently an infinite number of replies – the page is still loading and I’ve been reading and scrolling for several minutes. The replies are stinging and clarifying.
Christie Wilcox @NerdyChristie
@mdichristina Since when does @sciam censor blogs for lacking science content? No one took down my posts like this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2012/11/12/musical-monday-stay-near-me/ ….
Maggie Koerth-Baker @maggiekb
Expectation of free work is big deal. Treatment of women who refuse paradigm, even more.
Seth Zenz @sethzenz
Science blogging is best w/ writers’ work/lives. You picked a very bad time to define it narrowly.
Janet D Stemwedel @docfreeride
Martin Robbins @mjrobbins
This is a complete and utter screw up on your part. The sooner you guys get on top of it, the better.
Mariette DiChristina responded:
@hannahjwaters @sciam @BoraZ @DNLee5 “Partner” connection not a factor.
More infinite responses:
Ben Lillie @BenLillie
@mdichristina @hannahjwaters @boraz @dnlee5 Doesn’t matter. Pulling that post sends an incredibly bad message for diversity and support.
Chris Clarke @canlistrans
@mdichristina a staggeringly bad decision on scism’s part. Not too late to fix it. @hannahjwaters @sciam @BoraZ @DNLee5
The editor in chief says the reason was not the partner connection, but does not say what the reason was. Hm.