Montford has shown himself to be unreliable, I have no view whether or not the purported email from Pearce is real, but we go by reliable sources. The Guardian online is good at correcting articles, no reason why Pearce shouldn't use that route or his own blog to issue a retraction. Note that if we're going by blog sources, email 1719 reports that one reviewer definitely recommended rejection of S&B;, and never saw the manuscript again to assess the appropriateness of the rewrite. As stated earlier this section is overdue for a rewrite and clarification. . , talk