On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Jacob Keller <j-kell...@md.northwestern.edu > wrote:
> I assume this is the denouement of the Ajees et al debacle a while back? > Does this mean all authors on all of those papers were complicit? Otherwise, > how would one author alone perpetrate this kind of thing? He pretends to go > to the synchrotron, comes back with the hkl file, and goes from there? What > about the crystals? Grows some lysozyme crystals, labels as protein x, > proceeds to go "to the synchrotron" and then...? This whole thing is really > hard to imagine--is there an "initiation" procedure in that lab, when the > "noble lie" is revealed to all would-be authors? > I'm curious about this too, but it is actually very likely that some (perhaps the majority) of the co-authors were unaware of the fraud, especially those whose name is only present on a single paper. I didn't look closely, but I recognized one name of someone who certainly doesn't need to fake anything at this point in his career; I would be shocked if he had any clue what was going on. Likewise, if there were co-authors from entirely different fields, I'm sure they wouldn't know what a Wilson plot is supposed to look like. Many excellent scientists have been burned like this before; wouldn't you assume that your collaborators are acting in good faith? There are two other things to keep in mind: 1. The standard for co-authorship is often very low. This is a problem by itself, and it's one reason why Nature (and a few others) now list author contributions by name. 2. Rumor has it that in some labs, the PI may take the data and solve the structure personally, cutting out the postdoc or grad student who did most of the benchwork. (I've seen one or two author contribution sections that indicated this had occurred.) After all, spinning dials and looking at electron density is the "fun" part of crystallography. Who is going to second-guess the professor when a recommendation letter (and future career) is at stake? -Nat
