Sometimes scholarly journals, particularly in the natural sciences, call for critiques from readers and responses to those critiques by article authors. Pictured above is one such response to a critique from a 1963 issue of The Journal of Geology. This is the comment to which the authors responded:
It is obvious that this error in presenting sedimentation rates has no effect whatever on the ages given in the paper. Therefore, the main body of the paper and the conclusions reached by Rosholt et al. require no modification.
Link via Marginal Revolution
Previously: Blank Peer Reviewed Journal Article
TLDR
Abusive comment hidden.
(Show it anyway.)