one of the oddest papers to appear in Drug Discovery Today, which is saying something.
Apparently, the author — or someone claiming to be the author, using the initials YC — wasn’t crazy about the criticism. He left this comment on In The Pipeline and elsewhere:
I am the author of this paper. I think it time to stop this discussion so I decide to withdraw this accepted paper to avoid be insult any more. I wish our team can really construct a prototype of this technique even only a little progress. I had got tenure for more than five year and I really do not need this paper to get tenure. Please end of this discussion since I had email to the editor to ask withdraw this paper. BTW, this paper had been reviewed by three reviewers and revised for third version and revised by two editor. So I had revised it more than six version and check all the references. So please do not insult drug discovery today’ judgment. Just blame on me. I wish I can publish again five years latter with a solid evidence and experiment. Thank you all. You guy are really hurt me very badly.
Indeed, here’s the notice — a deeply uninformative one, we note — at Drug Discovery Today:
This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy.
The same YC — or at least, we assume that’s the case — also left what he claimed were the peer reviewers’ comments on another chemistry blog. As Lowe put it:
Many of them don’t sound like the comments I might have expected.