Imagine, if you will, that you are given a complete draft copy of a new paper that has just been submitted to a journal, and that paper cites your work, and it was provided as a professional courtesy before it has been peer-reviewed and accepted.
There’s a caveat attached to the email with the paper which says:
“Please keep it confidential until we post it ourselves.”
OK, fine and dandy, no problem there. Happy to oblige. I sent along a couple of small corrections and thanked the author.
Imagine my surprise when I get this email Friday from a reporter at a major global media outlet. I’ve redacted the names.
Dear Mr Watts
I’m the [media name redacted] new environment editor. I’m planning to write a pretty big piece next week on the [paper preprint name redacted], and wondered whether you might be able to give me your view of it. I think you’ve been sent the [paper preprint name redacted] paper… If you did happen to be able and interested, I’d be enormously grateful for a word about this on Monday. Might that be possible?
Mind you, this is about one week after I get the preprint from the author that he has submitted to the journal, and when I check the journal website, I discover that the paper is not in press yet amongst all those listed, even as recently as today. Of course I never expected it to be there, but I had to check just in case it had undergone some sort of turbo peer review in less than a week. I double checked with one of the co-authors who confirmed that indeed, it has not been accepted for publication.
I also checked with the author and asked, “Does the preprint [provided for ad hoc peer review amongst trusted professionals] you speak of for this paper include sending copies to media?” He answers back and says that he did, just one, the one contacting me and asking for comments.
So here’s my quandary: I’m asked by the author explicitly for confidentiality, yet it appears that is about to be negated by a major news outlet due to the author sending the same draft copy to a major media outlet before the paper has even passed peer review!
And to boot, the paper has a significant error in it which should be caught in peer review, but when they send it to media ahead of time with conclusions, we know full well the media outlet isn’t likely to spot such errors, and may not print it even if I point it out.
It’s a damned ridiculous position to be put in, and I’ll be frank, I don’t like being put in this position one bit. I think this is one of the most unprofessional things I’ve ever experienced. If it were a newbie, maybe somebody who never published in a journal before, I could understand this sort of faux pas, but this is a seasoned and established scientist at a major university.
When the news article in the major news outlet is published, this will all become clear. As it stands now, even though my trust is being abused, I’m going to stand by my agreement of confidentiality until such time the article appears. It is possible that given the complaints I lodged over the issue, that the article might get pulled, but either way I wanted a prior record of this established online.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The high road is a lonely road and often leaves you exposed. Your approach to this and your decision to remain confidential is an example of your attitudes and opinions, and the reason I and I am sure many others visit your website regularly. Good luck.
Being snowballed comes to mind here.
Interesting and strange! How anyone could confuse “confidential” and “sent a copy to a journalist” truly baffles.
Will this behavior impact the peer review process or the likelyhood of publication?
Well, that is a bad spot. IDK, Anthony. The more I get familiar with these people, the more I realize that some of them are really pretty stupid. Then, OTOH, when integrity doesn’t mean much to a person, they have a difficult time understanding how to act appropriately.
“It’s a damned ridiculous position to be put in, and I’ll be frank, I don’t like being put in this position one bit. I think this is one of the most unprofessional things I’ve ever experienced.”
Yes, what you describe is a total and complete violation of the letter and spirit of peer review by the author or authors. I look forward to your discussion after the regular peer review process has been completed.
Why not name names? Everyone knows who you are referring to. Press releases about unpublished papers are definitely a little odd despite prior discussion in congressional hearings…
It’s fairly common for press releases to be written during this stage, and for this kind of interaction to happen. The press releases then generally remain embargoed until the paper gets preprint status.
The “next week” thing puzzles me a little, is that the peer review deadline?
So do you think the reason you were asked not comment was to keep you from pointing out the errors before the story hits the press?
Small typo.
I discover that the paper is not is press yet.
[Thanks, fixed. ~dbs]
You’re doing the Right Thing and that’s what counts.
Don’t lose too much sleep over the fact that others hold themselves to significantly lower standards.
I’d tell the reporter “I’ve been asked not to discuss the paper until it is published,” tell the author that you’ve found an error and ask him if he’s nuts for giving it to the press, and I’m not sure if you should write a blog post. Obviously, the author expects you to take some time reading the paper, and ought to realized that you blog about interesting things. So go ahead.
Now, if you want to talk to the reporter, and the author says go ahead, then you’re out of the confidentiality request, or at least under a one with an exception. Talking about the reporter’s article becomes a bit messy if you were only allowed to talk to the reporter. I guess I’d offer to talk to the reporter and then talk about it anywhere once the reporter’s article is out.
You don’t need to defend the scientist from himself.
I assume the journal has a simple mechanism to get updated drafts out to the reviewers, I think it would be best if the scientist used that instead of wasting the reviewers’ time.
That’s pretty post-normal. Must be some pretty high stakes and great uncertainties involved. 😉
I would email the author and ask for a release from confidentiality. If he says no, then they’re playing games. If he says OK, you can help by correcting the significant error.
Presumably the demand ofr confidentiality was made to that exclusivity could be maintained for the media that will publish it article on the paper.
Is this the future of science whereby scientists seek an extra slice of income from their work by giving the scoop to prereviewed research.
1. Contact the author and ask permission to discuss it with the reporter.
2. Ask the reporter for a copy (a copy un encumbered by your promise).
3. Assume that permission has been granted to you to discuss it by virtue of the author releasing your name with the paper.
Thanks
JK
Anthony, as a law student, I may have a different view of confidentiality. Here, you have been asked to keep something confidential, but the author himself (or herself) has breached that confidentiality. That means it is no longer confidential information. At the very least, you have the author’s implicit permission to speak with someone with whom he has shared the confidence. If it were me, I would contact the author, and let him know that I plan to speak to the media person, with or without his consent. And then correct that glaring error. What the media person does with his story is between him and the author. Otherwise, you run the risk that the author uses your name, and implies your approval of the article.
I think Ric Werme’s approach is the most honorable. Sorry you got put in such a nasty spot, sir.
starzmon is correct,
I believe that since there was a breach in confidentiality by the other party Anthony is not obligated to keep it confidential. The information is now public. Anthony may be suffering “scruples” in the purest sense of the word. Anthony, it is wrong that you torture yourself about a moral obligation that you perceive, when the obligation does not exist.
Rest your mind. The information is not confidential.
Anthony,
My thought is you should not discuss with the reporter directly, but only give him communications through the author. This keeps the author accountable for anything that may eventually go media/journal/author weird.
John
Anthony:
I would suggest that the article and its description are not yet in the public domain, so may want to say nothing more until it is, glaring error and all.
Take the Mannly way out. Do as you please, then lie about it.
Be happy in your own skin!
Anthony,
Have you asked the author to be released from your agreement of confidentiality, and/or at least tell the reporter about the error so he/she can write an accurate piece?
“I also checked with the author and asked, …”
How can that communication not have addressed this issue? What was said?
Unless you agreed to confidentiality as a precondition of being provided the pre-print, you are under no legal or moral obligation to respect the request of confidentiality. If you choose to break confidentiality, you may not be offered the apparent courtesy of pre-print review or similar in the future. If you are concerned about that, you should get permission from the author before speaking about the paper, until such time as the paper or some other release, such as the article in [media name redacted] is published.
The copy of the paper you received from the author is covered by confidentiality. However, the copy of the paper held by the reporter is not subject to any such agreement. Ask the reporter to send you a copy of the paper to comment on and cc the author. So long as everything is done in plain view of all parties, there is no agreement broken.