It really isn't necessary to "submit" newsworthy information that has been widely reported elsewhere to the editors of "Science". They'll pick it up and run with it like a bolt... except in this case...

Now as your image of CO2 outgassing from the clathrate was about the only known image of any active process on Mars, excepting of course the weather and anuual polar change, (smokers came later) one would think it would be newsworthy. About every other science editor on the planet did, except for the team at "Science".

This brings us to the question of bias. My argument here is simply that the referees at Science have so much vested interest in seeing this "watery Mars" charade continue that they will even go as far as ignoring direct evidence of the contrary...

ep