Dear Flemming, On 8/21/19, Flemming Goery <flemming_go...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I find the message in my original e-mail has changed, perhaps by hackers,
What do u mean by 'hackers' BTW!!! > > Dear all: > A has sought a job in the lab of B. B invited A for a interview with a PPT > oral presentation, as requested A has sent the PPT on the structural biology > research of XXX to B by e-mail, and presented in front of B and his > postdoctoral researcher. > > After interview, B requested all research documents (including detailed > reports, all done by A) on XXX to be sent by A to B by e-mail, A sent, > including 2 sets of pdb for the same structure, one set with solvent, one > without. A told B all intellectual property of the Documents and the > research belonged to A, based on the regulation of A's institute. > Who was the boss/PI of A? If A did transfer all intellectual property to B then it is already 'game over for A'. > B sought a referee from A's institute, to someone A did not agree. It seems > the referee told B one set of PDB has been deposited (the one without > solvent, also completed by A) > > Then B did not give the offer to A. A joined Institute D, without > independent funding for the writing (in fact, no salary to support this > writing, and no fee for publication of this work). While one could sympathize A, it has no real effect on the claim. > > Several years later, A found B's paper, i.e., the concerned paper published > in Journal C. In the paper, B has used the information from deposited PDB > for 9 times (already a significant paprt of the paper, not to say the > message from the other Documents sent to B by A). In the paper, it write > something like, 'based on our work on the structure of (folowed by 4 letter > pdb code)', which implied the structure was solved by the authors of the > paper, rather than by A. > > A contacted Journal C, Journal C contacted B, B claimed the deposited PDB > was a public domain knowldge. Journal C took the action to add the reference > to the deposited pdb in the paper. --> Wait - who deposited the model? --> Did B deposit model without including A? --> Can you mention the PDB code? :-) > As mentioned, the paper has mentioned and used the message from the > deposited pdb 9 times, and in the paper the reference mark was not added to > the first occurence of the mentioning of the deposited pdb, but added (only > once in total for the 9 occurences of depositation code) to a paragraph > where it can be concluded that the authors have used the undeposited pdb > with the solvent. In another word, although reference to the deposited pdb > was added by a correction, from where the reference mark was added, it > cannot show they have refered to the cited pdb (completed by A), not to say > the undeposited pdb with solvent which they used based on the paragraph > information. > > A's concern was that: A cannot exclude the possibility that the research in > the paper other the part related to PDB, i.e., the part done in B's lab used > in the paper, were fabricated by the current paper authors, thus A request > paper retraction as the major claim. Not sure about that. May be you contact people at https://retractionwatch.com/ https://twitter.com/retractionwatch They may have more experience with these issues. > If cannot retratcted, A request to be the correspondence author (sometimes > requets co-first author, sometimes request both co-first author and > co-correspondence author), as without A's work (the PPT presentation, 2 sets > of pdb, all documents), the work in the concerned paper cannot be done. A > regard as having contributed to the initiation of the paper, thus A prefer > to be add as a co-correspondence author if appropriate. > > First, can the paper deserve a retraction, and second, can A deserve a > co-author? ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
