I apparently don't know how to properly queue posts. Well you'll all get to see my posts queued for the days last week. Apologies for not noticing sooner. I have been working on Supporting Information for the publication of my first first author paper!
Speaking of supporting information:
I want to take a post to discuss this article.
*Note - "Supporting information" (in this discussion) refers to the data a chemist collects as evidence of the identity of the compound they have synthesized. Most journals require extensive characterization including - proton NMR, carbon NMR, IR, and high resolution mass spec or elemental analysis.
*Note 2 - Find out more about Elemental Analysis here (I only link this one as it is the topic that this article pertains to).
Brief run down of the ChemBark story if you don't want to read it - In the supporting information file for a journal article that was just accepted into Organometallics, the PI (presumably) wrote a note to the student that was overlooked by NOT ONLY the writers of the paper, but also 3 reviewers AND final editors before publication:
Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis…
TONS has been said and posted in the science community regarding this statement. I only want to mention 3 things:
1) "Screw you" to whichever author said that (just in case it wasn't the PI). I can't even begin to describe the effort and time I've been putting in to my SI to make it complete and as perfect as I can. I am disgusted that you'd rather just "make up" data than take pride in your work and prove to everyone you've done what you've done.
2) I wonder what affect this event will have on the synthetic community. Will we need to start providing even MORE information (proof of attendance at a "certified" facility, signed expert affidavits, providing samples for journal editors to analyze themselves)? And how will we all look at each other's SI now? Can we truly believe what our colleagues are telling us?
3) Our responsibility as scientists is to search out and report the truth. When you lie about a yield, fudge a spectrum, "make up an elemental analysis", how can you truly call yourself a research scientist? Shame on you. Do you know how many papers I'd have at this point if I had made things up? Reputation is all a scientist has when they need to find collaborators or funding; who will fund or work with someone that will just make things up?
Organometallics had their official response published. If you're interested you can read it here. While I'm unhappy that there appears to be no actual punishment (they're keeping the article accepted but won't print it until they receive confirmation of the elemental analysis data), I understand that the editors can't make the decision to ban them for a certain amount of time or anything. I don't even know if they deserve to be banned...but something more needs to happen.
Aaaaaaand end chemistry rant. Back to positive posts! Coming up tomorrow - Hubby's bday and Despicable cupcakes.
No comments:
Post a Comment