In fact, I would put it even stronger, if we know a referee is being dishonest, it is our duty to make sure he is removed from science, blacklisted from the journal etc.
Mark J van Raaij Laboratorio M-4 Dpto de Estructura de Macromoleculas Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia - CSIC c/Darwin 3 E-28049 Madrid, Spain tel. (+34) 91 585 4616 http://www.cnb.csic.es/~mjvanraaij On 3 Apr 2012, at 19:13, Maria Sola i Vilarrubias wrote: > Mark, > > I know some stories (which of course I'll not post here) from the > Crystallography field and from other fields where reviewers profit from the > fact that suddenly they have new, interpreted data which fits very well with > their own results. Stories like to block a manuscript or ask for more results > for the reviewer to be able to submit its own paper (with "new" ideas) in > time, or copy a structure from the figures, or ask for experiments that only > the reviewer can do so he/she is included in the paper, or submit as fast as > possible in another journal with an extremely short delay of acceptance (e.g. > 10 days, without revision?, talking to the editorial board?) things like > this. Well, it is not question of making a full list, here!. The whole > problem comes from publishing first, from competition. > > The hope with fraud with X-ray data is that it seems to be detectable, thanks > to valuable people that develop methods to detect it. But it is very > difficult to demonstrate that your work, ideas or results have been copied. > How do you defend from this? And how after giving to them the valuable PDB? > > Finally, how many crystallographers are in the world? 5000? The concept of > ethics can change from one place to another and, more than this, there is the > fact that the reviewer is anonymous. > > I try to respond to my reviewers the best I can and I really trust their > criteria, sometimes a bit too much, indeed. I think they all have done a very > nice job. But some of the stories from above happened to me or close to me > and I feel really insecure with the idea of sending a manuscript, the X-ray > data and the PDB, altogether, to a reviewer shielded by anonymity. It's too > risky: with an easy molecular replacement someone can solve a difficult > structure and publish it first. And then the only thing left to the "bad > reviewer" is to change the author's list! (and for the "true" author what is > left is to feel like an idiot). > > In my humble opinion, we must be strict but not kill ourselves. Trust authors > as we trust reviewers. Otherwise, the whole effort might be useless. > > Maria > > Dep. Structural Biology > IBMB-CSIC > Baldiri Reixach 10-12 > 08028 BARCELONA > Spain > Tel: (+34) 93 403 4950 > Fax: (+34) 93 403 4979 > e-mail: maria.s...@ibmb.csic.es > > On 3 April 2012 16:58, Mark J van Raaij <mjvanra...@cnb.csic.es> wrote: > The remedy for the fact that some reviewers act unethically is not > withholding coordinates and structure factors, but a more active role for the > authors to denounce these possible violations and more effective > investigations by the journals whose reviewers are suspected by the authors > of committing these violations. > I have witnessed authors being hesitant to complain about possible violations > and journals not always taking complaints seriously enough. > > Mark J van Raaij > Laboratorio M-4 > Dpto de Estructura de Macromoleculas > Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia - CSIC > c/Darwin 3 > E-28049 Madrid, Spain > tel. (+34) 91 585 4616 > http://www.cnb.csic.es/~mjvanraaij > > > > On 3 Apr 2012, at 16:45, Bosch, Juergen wrote: > > > Hi Fred, > > > > I'll go public on this one. This happened to me. I will not reveal who > > reviewed my paper and which paper it was only that your naive assumption > > might not always be correct. I have learned my lesson and exclude people > > with overlapping interests (even though they actually might be the best > > critical reviewers for your work). Unfortunately you don't really have > > control if the journal still decides to pick those excluded reviewers. > > As a suggestion to people out there, make sure to not encrypt your comments > > as pdf and PW protect them - that's how I found out about the identity of > > the reviewer - as it couldn't be changed by the journal. > > > > I agree though that it shouldn't happen and I hope it only happens in very > > few cases. > > > > Jürgen > > > > > > On Apr 3, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Dyda wrote: > >> > >> I think the argument that this may give a competitive advantage > >> to the referee who him or herself maybe working on the same thing > >> should be mute, as I thought article refereeing was supposed to > >> be a confidential process. Breaching this would be a serious > >> ethical violation. In my experience, before agreeing to review, > >> we see the abstract, I was always thought that I was supposed to > >> decline if there is a potential conflict with my own work. > >> Perhaps naively, but I always assumed that everyone acts like this. > >> > > > > ...................... > > Jürgen Bosch > > Johns Hopkins University > > Bloomberg School of Public Health > > Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology > > Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute > > 615 North Wolfe Street, W8708 > > Baltimore, MD 21205 > > Office: +1-410-614-4742 > > Lab: +1-410-614-4894 > > Fax: +1-410-955-2926 > > http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/ > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >
