• Home
  • Development of Heparin and HS Glycotherapeutics
  • Lab
  • People

Ferniglab Blog

The personal blog of Dave Fernig, thoughts on science and unrelated matters

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Dr Katie Wilson
Responses to evidence of self-plagiarism »

The last resort of the scoundrel?

February 5, 2013 by ferniglab


Retraction Watch has been subject to a legal attack, which has removed from public view all posts on the retractions of publications by Anil Potti. The legal move is surreal, since it is in essence a claim that the text of the posts is in breach of copyright… …of a web site that only existed after most of the posts appeared on Retraction Watch. Fans of Douglas Adams will remember this particular legal move well, an editor sending a copy of the Hitch Hikers Guide back in time to allow the originators of text plagiarised in the guide to be sued for break of copyright. This points to someone trying to remove the fact of these retractions from the visible public record. I certainly hope that Retraction Watch’s counter move succeeds.

There is a pattern here. Anil Potti found substantial fame and then was found guilty of misconduct, papers have been retracted and Duke paid back grant funds (brief synopsis here). The only outcome should have been institutions (from journals to Universities) upping their game in terms of the rigour with which they assess the quality of research, rather than relying on reputation and impact factor of publications (reading the paper never did any harm…). Now, we have an attempt to use the law to censor what is entirely appropriate scientific debate: once published there is nothing confidential about the results in a paper. This is reminiscent with the means used to close down Science Fraud.
It doesn’t look good for science. Peer review can limp, because some reviewers cannot be bothered to actually read papers or grants (and in the latter case, read some of the cited literature they may be unfamiliar with). Editors at times just shrug their shoulders at notifications of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism and requesting data from authors is documented to often lead to nothing. This is at odds with what science claims to be and with institutional policies, whether it is the editorial guidelines of journals (the stipulation that data should be new and once published, shared, is common to all journals) and the rules on plagiarism and collusion. I recently highlighted the rules in force at MIT. For my Francophone audience, here is an excellent set of rules in French, from EPFL, which are a great model for any institution needing to overhaul their own rules.
So the dichotomy between how science actually operates and how it claims to operate remains. On the bright side, I do receive e-mails from righteously angry colleagues, so there is clearly a mass of people who would much prefer science to follow its own guidelines, rather than flouting them. The challenge then is not that we need new rules, but rather that individuals and institutions need to enforce the existing rules.

Advertisement

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Post publication peer review, Research integrity, Science process | Tagged Research integrity | 7 Comments

7 Responses

  1. on February 6, 2013 at 11:59 pm Responses to evidence of self-plagiarism « Ferniglab's Blog

    […] « The last resort of the scoundrel? […]


  2. on February 7, 2013 at 6:35 pm ferniglab

    For those who haven’t seen the posts and cannot wait (they will surely be back up on Retraction watch in a week or two), they are available as cached content:

    http://genomicsio.blogspot.ch/2013/02/retrachtionwatchcom-coverage-of-anil.html


  3. on February 24, 2013 at 2:33 pm Last refuge doesn’t last long | Ferniglab's Blog

    […] Act (DMCA) takedown notice for their posts on Anil Potti retractions. As I pointed out in an earlier post, the DMCA was somewhat surreal. The DMCA has now been rescinded, because it was entirely false. The […]


  4. on March 22, 2013 at 11:42 pm Re-use of “stripes” | Ferniglab's Blog

    […] same as those at other research-led universities, something that I have posted on before (here and here). Now we wait and see what the response is. The response will understandably take time, since these […]


  5. on April 10, 2013 at 7:27 pm Sue, Grabbit and Runne | Ferniglab's Blog

    […] into Anil Potti resulted in a false DMCA take down notice being issued to Retraction Watch (posts here and here with […]


  6. on May 31, 2013 at 11:13 pm When rigour deserts science we are left with quackery | Ferniglab's Blog

    […] 2. Science fraud has the potential to kill people, see my posts on Anil Potti and the links therein here and […]


  7. on August 15, 2013 at 9:33 am Does science self-right? | Ferniglab's Blog

    […] University of Utah. This has a familiar whiff: recall what occurred to Science Fraud and the false DCMA Retraction Watch was subjected […]



Comments are closed.

  • Places of interest

    The one and only PhD comics, the guide to being a graduate and to mentoring.

    Improbable Research and the Ig Nobels

    Retraction Watch provides updates on retractions of articles.

    Office for Research Integrity, their video should be compulsory for all.

    Centre for Alternative Technology

    Lateral Science, has some quite stunning information - well worth a browse.

    Fascinating places that have been closed by lawyers

    Science Fraud, shut down due to legal threats on Jan 3 2013. and Abnormal Science

  • Blogroll

    • WordPress.com
    • WordPress.org
  • Funding agencies

    • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
    • Cancer and Polio Research Fund
    • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
    • Liverpool Pancreas NIHR Biomedical Research Unit
    • Medical Research Council
    • North West Cancer Research
  • Seminars

    • Cancer Research UK Centre
  • February 2013
    M T W T F S S
     123
    45678910
    11121314151617
    18192021222324
    25262728  
    « Jan   Mar »
  • Archives

    • November 2022
    • July 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • May 2021
    • March 2021
    • August 2020
    • June 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • December 2019
    • October 2019
    • July 2019
    • May 2019
    • April 2019
    • January 2019
    • September 2018
    • August 2018
    • May 2018
    • April 2018
    • February 2018
    • January 2018
    • December 2017
    • November 2017
    • July 2017
    • June 2017
    • April 2017
    • March 2017
    • January 2017
    • October 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • March 2016
    • January 2016
    • December 2015
    • July 2015
    • June 2015
    • May 2015
    • March 2015
    • February 2015
    • January 2015
    • December 2014
    • November 2014
    • October 2014
    • September 2014
    • August 2014
    • July 2014
    • June 2014
    • February 2014
    • January 2014
    • December 2013
    • October 2013
    • September 2013
    • August 2013
    • July 2013
    • June 2013
    • May 2013
    • April 2013
    • March 2013
    • February 2013
    • January 2013
    • December 2012
    • November 2012
    • October 2012
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • July 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
  • Follow me on Twitter

    My Tweets
  • Cloud

    American Civil War antithrombin III banana Biological imaging biotechnology Brexit Choanoflagellates chocolate chondroitin sulfate coagulation Confederate States covid19 DN Lee Education EU EU referendum Europe extracellular matrix FGF Fibroblast growth factor Food FRET sensors Gish Gallop glycosaminoglycans GMO government Graduate students heparan sulfate heparin history of science imaging Irvine Stephens Bulloch James Bulloch James Dunwoody Bulloch Liverpool microbiology Nanoparticle Nanoparticles Nanotechnology neuroscience nmr Open Access Open Data orange Parliament Peer Review PhD polysaccharide port sunlight Post publication peer review protein chemistry REF research Research Excellence Framework Research integrity Roast SARS-CoV-2 science Science and Technology Committee Science fraud Science Funding Science progress Scientific American Seminars sorbet speaking strawberry sulfation Sulfotransferase synthetic biology Teaching technology transfer Tourism Travel Universities

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Ferniglab Blog
    • Join 73 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Ferniglab Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: