Raphael notes in a post today on his blog entitled “On my [Pep Pàmies] comments on Lévy’s blog” that the apologia written in a private capacity by Pep Pamies, an editor at Nature Materials has been removed. A cached version has been unearthed and is posted for the record on Raphael’s blog.
To recap, Pep had been defending the data of Francesco Stellacci supporting the separation of ligands on nanoparticles into stripes; he eventually revealed himself to be an editor at Nature Materials, which surprised many and angered a few. As I commented earlier, one aspect I found worrying was the fact that Pep was not taking a strong line against data re-use.
So why the disappearance of his comments? My own speculation is that some giant has awoken from a deep slumber to find annoying disorder in his (or her) castle. As various fairy tales teach us, in such situations (quite common in fairy tales) giants tend to react somewhat violently towards anyone unfortunate to be within striking distance. We should not forget that giants have quite a long reach – that is why they are giants, after all!
Of course it may not be a giant – dragons, I understand from my reading of wise tomes such as Farmer Giles of Ham and The Hobbit, have similar tendencies as giants. Plus dragons can fly, so their reach is greater than that of a giant.
Nevertheless, I remain confident, perhaps over confident, that giants are only so big, dragons can only fly so far and that the world is far larger than their reach. The consequence is that there will always be a safe haven for information. After all, history teaches us that the movement of information out of the reach of an irate giant or dragon has been critical in preserving open debate and democracy and, hence, science. Indeed, the unexpected (temporary) disappearance of information often only serves to stoke the curiosity of Homo sapiens.
Ferniglab Blog 
Dave, your story about giants and dragons is amusing, but as often with your written posts and comments of late, it is venomous and wrong.
Reality is more boring: My Columbia online account (including web space and e-mail address) expired after a grace period, as I have not been affiliated with Columbia for quite a while.
From an automatic e-mail I received from samurai@columbia.edu: “Please be advised that your Columbia (Cyrus) email system access via jp2766 will expire early on 02/15/2013. If you are an employee and you believe you are still eligible, please contact your department administrator.”
I plan to revive my blog on another computer platform, but I haven’t yet had time to do so. Glad that Raphäel reposted my note meanwhile.
I wouldn’t say venomous, just injecting some humour. To recall, the giant in the fairy tale smells the blood of an Englishman, which leaves many of the commentators in the clear, though not myself.
I am truly relieved that it is the usual grey administration rather than anything else – there are more than enough giants and dragons around. Happily there are none in the stripy nanoparticle discussions, which continue to be reasonable and fair. There are no “sharp elbows” and no comments or posts which I would see earning a red card for content or intent.
I would recommend WordPress as a blogging site. They are very good and if you saw the false DCMA takedown notice suffered by Retraction Watch, they do not over react to giants and dragons!
Dave,
I disagree. The ‘stripy nanoparticle’ discussions have been unreasonable and unfair.
Raphäel Lévy is in a quest to prove his preconceived story by ignoring facts that do not fit into his narrative.
Philip Moriarty boasts opinionated, premature conclusions before the relevant data can be collected and analyzed by the criticized authors, by others or by him.
Predrag Djuranovic has been treated as an authority on the subject despite that apparently he has yet to graduate.
You actively search for instances of data re-use and then rush to make toxic judgments about how such mistakes came to be or should be dealt with.
Exposing problems related to published scientific literature is, of course, good for science. Cherry-picking evidence, stating premature conclusions as if they were facts, and making speedy judgements damages the fair and (often necessarily slow) progress of science. Finding and voicing potential scientific flaws is easy. Carrying out the appropriate experiments and analysis that the scientific process demands takes substantially more time than writing blog posts.
The ball is on Francesco Stellacci and co-authors’ court. It’s on their own interest to correct/admit any outstanding problems and defend their work when they are ready. Only when sufficient evidence is on the table the relevant scientific community will arrive at a consensus about this debate.
Yours, Raphäel’s and Philip’s rushed conclusions are damaging to the process. And prejudiced views and hyperbole should not be disguised as reasonable scientific discussion.
(Needless to say, this is my personal opinion, not that of my employer.)
P.S. As I did with Lévy’s blog, I will also refrain from entering into further discussion on the matter on this blog.
@Pep.
Opinionated? Moi? Surely you jest!
😉
I can readily accept that I am dogged and dogmatic about this ( and many other aspects of science ). That’s a fair criticism.
What’s rather less fair is to suggest that my (and Raphael’s and Pedja’s) conclusions are premature. Some of the STM data have been in the literature for almost a decade. It’s clear to see that the conclusions are not supported by the data for the reasons we have discussed at length in a series of posts at Raphael’s blogs. Raphael did a great job recently of summarizing the key aspects of this convoluted debate .
You state,
The ball is on Francesco Stellacci and co-authors’ court. It’s on their own interest to correct/admit any outstanding problems and defend their work when they are ready .
Over the last few months I have repeatedly asked Francesco to send me the raw data underpinning the conclusions in his group’s papers. He has repeatedly failed to send me that data. As you know, Nature Publishing Group’s own guidelines do not mandate authors to provide raw data “when they are ready”, as you suggest. Instead, those guidelines correctly state that “authors are required to make materials, data and associated protocols promptly available to readers without undue qualifications.”
I asked you at the start of the year to provide examples of our “prejudiced views and hyperbole”, as you put it – a claim that you have made previously. Those examples haven’t been forthcoming.
Predrag Djuranovic has been treated as an authority on the subject despite that apparently he has yet to graduate.
That comment really does not do you any credit at all, Pep. Arguments from authority are never convincing. Predrag’s discussion of the feedback loop artifacts is clear and compelling. Rather than stooping to ad hominem slurs, please engage with the arguments.
Philip
Hello again, “Pep”.
You don’t need to have a PhD to contribute to these discussions / controversy in constructive ways. Predrag Djuranovic may have not graduated yet – as you as stressing – but, having read his comments and yours, I have so much more respect to him than to you – with your PhD and numerous postdocs.
And who knows, maybe people signing themselves as “Someone has to say it” or “It’s about for game to end” have not only PhDs, but also hold Professor positions?
Agree with Dave’s previous comments that data duplication and self-plagiarism are not acceptable. Also agree with the comment, “We should not forget that giants have quite a long reach – that is why they are giants, after all!”. Indeed, wrong doings of folks in leadership positions are kept under wraps by the academic insititutions and editors. In earlier comments, I pointed out the case of Dr. Ziwei Huang, Director of Upstate Cancer Institute and Chairman of Pharmacology Department at Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York.
A recent report (http://gumtalk.wordpress.com/) identifies that one of his papers published in Current Opinion in Chemical Biology “appears to have plagiarized from at least 8 different publications and a course material.” As of yet no action taken by Upstate Medical University or editors of the journal. Checked some of his other publications and found multiple instances of plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Perhpas Dave or anyone else would like to look into this further. Can provide list of other suspect publications if needed.
[…] Stellacci, Nature Materials 7, 588 – 595 (2008). Thanks to Pep (despite stating he would no longer comment on this blog) for pointing this out in a comment on my blog entitled […]