Oh no not at all! The results are still solid. So, "ploy" isn't the right word, not really. "Stunt"? "Technique"?
I was just thinking - They could have found a way to email or otherwise contact the authors, instead of just posting comments, but posting comments (and getting some news on it) drives more traffic due to scandal effects.
This rabbit hole can go deeper - what if private disclosure was expected to backfire? By surprising people publicly, they're more forced to admit there's an issue; and then by providing both the issue and a solution, there's an easy way at hand to fix it....
If I use software and there's a bug, I don't want to find out years later when the author decided to admit it, I want to find out right away so I can get it patched. Papers are equivalent to code, if I'm developing something based on one I want to know if the foundation is reliable or not.
> what if private disclosure was expected to backfire?
Well of course it could be expected to go badly. Look at all the "concern" spent over their methods already.
But yes, it would have been interesting if they had contacted authors quietly and without telling them their methods, simply to see who updated their paper and who tried to blame the messenger... Then publish that list and let the field really correct itself.
