{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024500907441016333, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010889292196007259, 'mean_word_length': 4.991847826086956, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 1, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Update of editorial comment

Evolution. 2018 Oct;72(10):2267. https://doi.org/10.1111/evo. 13605. Two years ago, I published an “Editorial Comment” about an exchange of Technical Comments in our journal. For context, a Technical Comment is a paper that offers new analyses, criticisms, or alternative interpretations of findings in research papers recently published in Evolution. The first critical Technical Comment goes out for full peer review, but the author of the original paper is invited to submit a rejoinder Technical Comment. In this instance 2 years ago, following acceptance and online publication of the pair of Technical Comments in our journal, I received an expression of concern from the author of the first critical one, identifying aspects of the rejoinder to which he referred as fatally flawed. Such a situation following a Technical Comment exchange between authors had not happened before in my term, and I consulted with colleagues to devise a process for handling it. I had two experts (not authors on either paper) review the exchange as well as this new allegation, and based on their feedback, I wrote an Editorial Comment stating that the numerical results of the rejoinder were correct but that the conclusion regarding the particular software package discussed was overstated. After discussion with the rejoinder’s authors, discussion with the current editor-in-chief, and further consideration, I have concluded that my approach to the Editorial Comment was wrong and lacked transparency. I did not give the authors of the rejoinder the opportunity to themselves address the aspects of the paper identified as problematic by the after-the-fact reviewers, nor to challenge the conclusion, but instead simply ended the process via this Editorial Comment. The rejoinder authors should have had the opportunity to address the concerns themselves. Transparency is especially important when there is no way for editors to account for unconscious biases, too. As such, I have concluded that the approach I took in the previous Editorial Comment was incorrect. I offer my apologies to the authors of both the Rejoinder as well as to the author of the original Technical Comment.