> The Nature rejection was because of the Ranga Dias affair, and it wasn't an outright rejection but a requirement that the paper be submitted to a local journal and peer reviewed by local scientists before it would be considered.
There is no way this is true. Nature only publishes original papers, which means publication in another journal - why would it have to be "local"? - would preclude their ability to publish.
It's the claim they're making, I don't know. Nature hasn't commented publicly at this stage.
If it was a flat-out rejection, the spin on the story may be an attempt to smooth things over and leave the door open to collaboration with Nature in the future. It comes across as the opposite of vindictive, and there's really no way this story makes Nature look bad with the authors saying this. On the other hand, if Nature had rejected it outright and then LK-99 is the real deal, I think that could have been embarassing for them.
There is no way this is true. Nature only publishes original papers, which means publication in another journal - why would it have to be "local"? - would preclude their ability to publish.