The behaviour of Horton does appear to be puzzling and the explanations so eloquently mooted here might be correct.
However, to play devil's advocate, might the behaviour not also be consistent with another explanation?
Having solicited a letter from the researchers, it could be that he was unable to implement the stated terms, his editorial decisions being vetoed by higher authority, upon representations being made by interested parties. Proprietorial control is not unheard of in such circumstances. It does not take much of a threat to advertising revenues to concentrate the proprietorial mind.
It could be that Horton's failure to sign the letter finally issued by the correspondence editor is the only means available to him of showing that he does not concur with the decision- contractual terms preventing any more florid response. Admittedly one would expect a resignation in such circumstances, but not all can afford the principled resignation.
Just a thought. To muddy the water. Whatever the truth, it doesn't say much for the Lancet.
However, to play devil's advocate, might the behaviour not also be consistent with another explanation?
Having solicited a letter from the researchers, it could be that he was unable to implement the stated terms, his editorial decisions being vetoed by higher authority, upon representations being made by interested parties. Proprietorial control is not unheard of in such circumstances. It does not take much of a threat to advertising revenues to concentrate the proprietorial mind.
It could be that Horton's failure to sign the letter finally issued by the correspondence editor is the only means available to him of showing that he does not concur with the decision- contractual terms preventing any more florid response. Admittedly one would expect a resignation in such circumstances, but not all can afford the principled resignation.
Just a thought. To muddy the water. Whatever the truth, it doesn't say much for the Lancet.