The Scientist : NewsBlog Print: Ethics body questions Cell
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Ethics body questions Cell
Posted by Bob Grant
[Entry posted at 23rd February 2009 04:11 PM GMT]

A UK ethics organization that focuses on fairness and honesty in scientific publication has lent some support to researchers who complained that a 2008 Cell paper failed to adequately recognize their work and includes substandard experimentation. But the gesture seems unlikely to result in any concrete action regarding the researchers' complaints.

The London-based Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has weighed in on the row involving University of Cambridge biologist Peter Lawrence and several colleagues, editors at Cell, and Stanford University developmental biologist Jeffrey Axelrod after another journal involved in the fracas sought the body's advice.

Lawrence and his colleagues claim that Axelrod's Cell paper, which dealt with the genetic and cellular machinery underlying planar cell polarity (PCP), did not properly cite a 2004 Development paper coauthored by Lawrence. They wrote letters to Cell detailing their problems with the Axelrod paper and requesting the journal to publish the letters or a short review by Lawrence. Cell editors instead suggested that Lawrence and his colleagues post their concerns in comments to the journal's website. Editors at Development turned to COPE concerning Cell's handling of the complaints.

COPE is composed mostly of editors-in-chief from leading scientific journals and publishers, including Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, Taylor & Francis and the BMJ Publishing Group. Editors from both Cell and Development are members of COPE.

COPE told Development that journal editors should "encourage debate" and publish "cogent criticisms of published work," according to Times Higher Education, which obtained a copy of COPE's advice.

"I'm glad that Development brought the issue up with COPE," Lawrence told The Scientist. But he noted that the organization's deliberations were not made public, and that he does not expect Cell to take any action.

COPE added that scientists should air complaints against published manuscripts via online comments "if nothing else is available," but implied that such comments carry less weight because they are not citable in scientific literature and usually do not carry digital identification numbers.

COPE also advised researchers in Lawrence's position to carry complaints to a "higher authority," such as journal publishers or scientific societies.

Stanford said in a statement sent to Times Higher Education and obtained by The Scientist that "In the matter of Chen el al [sic] (Cell, June 13, 2008), the Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs initiated a preliminary assessment of the claims made against Dr. Axelrod. A review of the papers in question was conducted by a scientific expert knowledgeable of but uninvolved with the research. The preliminary assessment concluded that there is no credible evidence of scientific misconduct and therefore determined no further action is warranted."

When questioned as to the identity of the "scientific expert" who conducted the literature review and the timing of the inquiry, Stanford told The Scientist that "As per Stanford policy, the preliminary assessment conducted into the allegations against Dr. Axelrod is a confidential process. We have nothing further to add to our previous statement."

"I would certainly find the response from Stanford insufficiently transparent and superficial," Lawrence said.

Lawrence said he has considered contacting other independent science groups, such as the International Council for Science and the UK's Office of Research Integrity. "I don't think we can go much further," he said, adding that he worries that it will appear as he is making a fuss simply for selfish purposes, and "that it will look like we're getting too upset about something when there are so many important things going on in the world."

Lawrence noted that his complaints were meant to draw attention to what he called a developing trend towards "papersmanship," where researchers "annex the work of others" and "pretend their own work is more novel than it really is" in order to get their papers published in high-profile journals. "I see this kind of behavior almost becoming institutionalized and accepted," he said. "The more people who do that and get rewarded for it, the more prevalent the practice will become."

Editors at Development and Cell declined to comment on this issue.


Related stories:
  • Critics rip Cell paper
    [25th November 2008]
  • The Ethics Of Citation: A Matter Of Science's Family Values
    [9th June 1997]

    •  

    Rate this article

    Rating: 4.42/5 (19 votes )


    Comment on this blog


    Science has a corruption problem
    by Ellen Hunt

    [Comment posted 2009-02-24 00:39:31]
    Corruption in science is growing like a cancer. Right now it can still be dealt with if we go after it. But the day may come, not too long from now, when science can no longer be cleaned up.

    The problems start in graduate school, with abusive, exploitive, advisers, some of whom are simply liars. The problem grows in postdocs who become desperate to get out and become a professor, and sometimes target P.I.s who they suspect or learn are happy to let the postdoc be corrupt.

    The problem matures in professors at low levels and reaches its pinnacle in some of the chairs of departments in some of the best universities in the nation.

    The problem is supported by administrations because such professors get big grants. (Not all who get big grants are corrupt, but usually corrupt survivors get them, and utilize their networks with other corrupt operators to do it.)

    The supine behavior of most honest academics makes it easy. Nobody wants to fight with these people. It is nobody's job to put them away. We have no prosecutors, we have no investigators that mean anything. We are operating under feudal rules, and just like Wall Street, we do not police ourselves very well. We only do so when we absolutely must, and do it poorly then.


    not only us
    by peter lawrence

    [Comment posted 2009-02-23 18:01:09]
    I would like to remind readers that the complaints about the Cell paper did not just come from myself and my immediate colleagues, Jos? Casal and Gary Struhl but also from 3 other groups in the USA (Marek Mlodzik), UK (David Strutt) and France (Jean-Francois le Garrec). We all think that the Cell paper misrepresents the scientific literature in order to make the authors' work and conclusions appear to be novel.


    Timely article.
    by Sergio Vasquez

    [Comment posted 2009-02-23 15:40:25]
    After conference with vital collaborators, our group recently attributed the benefit of the doubt to a group whose paper may or may not have been "in press" as ours went public, resulting in a significant statement of error in their resultant publication. Statements such as "...to our knowledge, X has not previously been demonstrated..." should be researched and scrutinized thoroughly by reviewers and editors alike before publication.

    At times, it is best to let things go. Had I been fighting for funding in academia, perhaps it would have been wise to exhaust the debate.


    A fairly common practice
    by Antoine Danchin

    [Comment posted 2009-02-23 12:56:41]
    The rule of the strongest is the common law. This example is an interesting one, as it involves fairly well-known places and journals. However, the example given is fairly commonplace. The usual "trick" by authors at high profile laboratories when they wish to publish at high IF journals is to cite in a very discreet place of a manuscript a paper which makes in fact the core of what they present as novelty. The older the real discovery the better, as it will have been more or less forgotten anyway... In a way this is the essence of plagiarism, that can be detected at dejavu, or sites of that type.

    What can we do? Not much unfortunately, unless we transform Science in a FBI / CIA second hand facility! The only attitude I would suggest is to remember that, born naked we shall die alike, and that Science will remain, and forget our names. Yet, there is the question of funding, because of the unfortunate fashion which still likes bibliometrics in its grossest forms.

    The recommendation I would make (not an original one, but best repeated again and again) is that all evaluation bodies consider the published output after reading at least some papers (and not simply adding up bibliometric marks), but also the success in training, the research environment and the peer esteem for the evaluated investigators. This might qualify the apparent success of scientists who behave as do mobsters.


    Comment on this blog