A strange sentence in a strange comment just published in BMCR:
Without appreciating the methodological questions raised in this recent scholarship,'Scholarship' means either the scholarly attainment of an individual, or a grant for study, but not scholarly literature or scholarly opinion. This solecism is unfortunately not uncommon.
Singpurwalla brings arguments against Weiss that cannot be sustained.
Also, "Without appreciating" would naturally mean, "If she fails to appreciate", in which case the second clause should be "Singpurwalla cannot bring arguments against Weiss that can be sustained"--yet then one might wonder why her not appreciating something should have a bearing on whether her own arguments can be sustained.
Of course, what the editors wish to run is their business. But I personally fail to see how third-party replies to reviews, unless they are straightforward corrections, have a place in a journal such as BMCR. Leave that sort of thing to blogs (I say)!