When I hear of a reviewer holding up a publication and then publishing something similar, my first reaction is fury and I feel the case should be investigated and this immoral individual should be exposed. However I can see that there are many shades of gray here. We're all biased in that we tend to ignore information that conflicts with our previous cherished beliefs and focus on things that confirm them. So it can take a long time to change your mind - sometimes months. This can lead to indecision and delays, but in retrospect we tend to think that we would have come to those conclusions in any case so there's no harm in using the info.
People with a strong sense of duty will get the review done quickly and make sure that they don't take advantage of the data, but I can see that it can be tempting. I think the idea of getting reviewers to sign a piece of paper saying that there is no immediate conflict of interest i.e. they are not about to publish something similar, is a good one. The author could prepare simple statement describing the topics covered (not the abstract which gives, or should give, the conclusions). Then it's not a matter of proving that the reviewer cheated, only that they had the opportunity to cheat. I always communicate freely with the editors, e.g. telling them why I don't want such-and-such to review the paper. Wouldn't it be possible simply to ask the editor to check that the reviewer asking for co-ordinates etc is not close to publishing something that could benefit from the data? I don't think it's a good idea for reviewers' names to be visible because that would mean that we would all have to do a far more professional job of the review. (I'm not a career scientist but I've been asked to review a few papers.) I also agree with those who say that this competitive focus on high impact journals etc. stifles creativity, is inefficient and gives poor value for money. Just some thoughts - probably stating the obvious Patrick On 20 April 2012 01:18, Edward A. Berry <ber...@upstate.edu> wrote: > Bosch, Juergen wrote: > >> To pick a bit on George's point with MR & citation. >> >> Here's how you can read it in the paper from your favourite competitor: >> >> A homology model was generated using [fill in any program for ab initio >> prediction] and subsequently used for molecular replacement with Molrep. >> The structure was refined to an Rwork of 21% and Rfree of 24 %. >> >> Or maybe the structure was solved by MIR, using a lot of heavy atom data > that > they had been unable to solve until a fortuitous MR result gave phases > which > located the heavy atoms -- No, No, it was that new improved version of > autosol! > Anyway, who cares how the heavy atoms were located- the structure was > solved > entirely using their data and they have the raw data (image files even) to > prove it. It was just bad luck with the derivatives that kept them from > solving it 6 months earlier. They really deserve to have the first > publication! > >> >> >> -- patr...@douglas.co.uk Douglas Instruments Ltd. Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK Directors: Peter Baldock, Patrick Shaw Stewart http://www.douglas.co.uk Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090 US toll-free 1-877-225-2034 Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36
