Dear Oliver Braddick, I got your response about submission to Current Biology about interpretation of fMRI results, and I think you haven't given it enough consideration. It is my opinion, and I think you, the reviewers and the editors will agree, that after an article has beed published in a scientific journal, comments about it should be published, provided they are: 1) Of significant importance. 2) Scientifically sound. Let us concentrate on point 2. Both the reviewers thought it is important, and you seems to agree. As to the soundness of my argument, neither of the reviewers actually touched it, even though both would have liked to. The first reviewer ended an irrelevant discussion by reiterating his belief in positive results, without reference to my argument, which clearly explain why positive results are unlikely to be significant (at this resolution). The second reviewer tried to show that my argument is unsound by distorting it. Hence my argument is both important and probably sound, and should be published. It was not. That is clearly censorship. The existence of other journals does not free Current Biology from its obligation to sound scientific standards, and it certainly did not follow these in this case. In addition, my letter was a comment on a specific article which was published in Current Biology, so it make much more sense to publish it in Current Biology. On top of this, as I explained in my letter to you, I will have the same problems (annonymous reviewers writing negative reviews based on nonsense arguments, and editors that rely on theirs judgement without checking its soundness) in other journals too. These are important questions that need discussion, but the people in this field try to suppress them, and until now they are successful, with your endorsement. As to your suggestion of writing a 'broader account', this has no bearing on the question of publishing my own comments. Also, it will be much more difficult to press through this kind of reviews. We first have to make sure that reviewers cannot reject texts just because they don't like their conclusions, even if the conclusions are against the opinion of the majority of the researchers. Yehouda Harpaz