Every researcher knows mistakes happen, but it takes real commitment to open science to put your code and data out there, knowing the risks. You are *asking* the world for critique. Unfortunately, most of criminology is still unwilling to do this most basic step. That's why it was such a shame that Jacob Kang-Brown chose to take a more cynical approach, pushing a narrative that felt aimed at advancing an agenda rather than building scientific understanding. Open science is about collaboration and refining our work, not using errors as ammo. Not advancing political projects over professional science. What impressed me most was the original authors' restraint – no instant social media back-and-forth, just a trust in their process and the rigor of their work. They let an independent review confirm the findings and didn’t rely on tweets to defend themselves. That’s real professionalism and integrity in action. This kind of response should be a model for us all – letting science, not social media, do the talking. We should thank @jnixy and his co-authors for setting a higher standard for how we approach open science and handle critique in research.