I thought that it would make more sense for Huybers to consider our Reply, assess whether it fully responded to his issue (which IMO) it did and then publish a joint paper setting out the issue and its resolution, rather than leaving readers to try to sort out a Comment-Reply.
The joint paper may be the result of some mediation, but it would not be its immediate product, as defined in the current op-ed:
They write a joint paper where they state the areas they agree on in order to narrow down the dispute, the fundamental points that they disagree about, and then **– this is the trick – they have to agree on why they disagree.**
The request that Huybers “fully agrees” with M&M’s results is not exactly the same thing as to report the results and then discuss agreements and disagreements in an explicit manner.