Thank you.  I have updated the manuscript with the suggested changes.

Replying to Reviewer 2

This review seems fine. I will just offer a few minor grammar/style edits:

1. "The extent of the truly reprehensible misconduct" should be rephrased as "The extent of truly reprehensible misconduct"

2. "Less was discussed about political and ideological biases" should be rephrased as "Less attention was given to political and ideological biases"

3. "there is mention of the heavy liberal weight in numbers of professors in social sciences" should be rephrased as "there is mention of the heavy liberal skew of social science professors"

4. "Noah Carl, Michael A. Woodley of Menie" should be rephrased as "Noah Carl and Michael A. Woodley of Menie"

About 5 - 6 years ago, we first heard that a large number of published research papers failed
replication.

Does this refer to the Reproducibility Project from 2015? If so, cite it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project

It refers to the Ritchie book.  I have not heard of the Reproducibility  Project.  If you think I should delete this comment, I can do that.

Fraud - The book provides detailed discussions of data being altered, copied, and fabricated.

Suggest expanding this to more than 1 sentence. Typically paragraphs should be 3+ sentences long to read well. There is one instance more of this problem later as well.

Jussim and colleagues have a number of good papers on political bias. Perhaps give them a read and add anything you find relevant.

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/10/4/82

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1047840X.2020.1722600?journalCode=hpli20

https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2018-63180-001.html

Replying to Robert L. Williams

Replying to Reviewer 1

About 5 - 6 years ago, we first heard that a large number of published research papers failed
replication.

Does this refer to the Reproducibility Project from 2015? If so, cite it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project

It refers to the Ritchie book.  I have not heard of the Reproducibility  Project.  If you think I should delete this comment, I can do that.

I am confused by the reply. You say about 5-6 years ago, we first heard of a ... what is it you heard of 5-6 years ago? Seems like it is the reproduciblity project, but maybe you don't know it under that name.

The reviewer should discuss how retraction can become a form of censorship. A recent case is the "unpublishing" of a paper by J.-Philippe Rushton eight years after its original publication. I discussed this abuse of retraction on my blog:

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2020/06/cleansing-scientific-literature-again.html

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2020/06/when-mob-decides-truth.html

Replying to Tue 16 Nov 2021 07:49

The reviewer should discuss how retraction can become a form of censorship. A recent case is the "unpublishing" of a paper by J.-Philippe Rushton eight years after its original publication. I discussed this abuse of retraction on my blog:

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2020/06/cleansing-scientific-literature-again.html

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2020/06/when-mob-decides-truth.html

Thank you for your comment.  I wrote a book review.  My manuscript was not a research report or an analysis.  It is about Ritchie's book and nothing else.

Replying to Robert L. Williams

Replying to Tue 16 Nov 2021 07:49

The reviewer should discuss how retraction can become a form of censorship. A recent case is the "unpublishing" of a paper by J.-Philippe Rushton eight years after its original publication. I discussed this abuse of retraction on my blog:

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2020/06/cleansing-scientific-literature-again.html

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2020/06/when-mob-decides-truth.html

Thank you for your comment.  I wrote a book review.  My manuscript was not a research report or an analysis.  It is about Ritchie's book and nothing else.

Wouldn't this point fit into your"Missing" section? For what it's worth, I'm not interested in being cited. I just feel that Ritchie is wrong in seeing retraction of published articles as a good trend. In fact, it has a dark side, and that dark side will probably become more and more dominant as time goes on.