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.
Anthony,
Did you have advance notice from the author of the paper that he/she would send you the paper?
Or was the first contact/email from the author the one that contained the paper?
Anyway, if it were me then I would only communicate with the author and never directly with the reporter. I would not reply to the reporter directly. Then all the report can say is ‘no response from Watts’.
Also, you are wise to bring up this situation here publicly before any weirding starts. : )
Joh
George E Smith – “So I would tell the reporter, that you can’t comment until you have a copy from him of the docuent HE is asking you to comment on. After all; how do YOU know that the reporter has the exact same document you have”.
I too was wondering if it was the *exact* same document.
The fact that the hypothetical has been discussed here should suggest to the author and the journalist (if they exist and read this blog) that it might be worth having a good look at the paper again and decide if there are problems. They would then be smart to ask for a correction before peer review and publication is completed. But then that might mean the paper isn’t worth publishing… true? If the paper is never published will you ever be able to discuss it?
In my opinion FWIW you have done the right thing Anthony and now we are all waiting with baited breath for the next episode :-).
Anthony,
I agree with andyd at 2:13 pm. You are being used. I’d go one step further and say that you are being set up.
You have given your word with regard to confidentiality. Keep to your word and no-one can ever point a finger at you. Don’t bother with “implicit” or “explicit” permissions.
The keeping of one’s word, no matter what, is the mark of a true gentleman and that you are one sir, is what retains my readership of this blog.
What’s the Berkely group up to lately.
Embargoes are so 2008. On December 17, 2008, Techcrunch posted its new embargo policy.
Some background from John Biggs at Techcrunch.
Some interesting comments and analysis of the WSJ policy here.
http://racetalkblog.com/2009/04/09/wall-street-journal-follows-techcrunch-no-longer-honoring-embargoes/
An embargo with an end date of until we post it ourselves is pretty silly. I see nothing wrong with publishing right now the name(s) of the author(s), the journalist, the media outlet and the errors you found and reported. The author is breaking his own embargo and all agreements are now null and void. If you don’t publish, you will be an enabler.
How else will the world learn that a press release, a media story and a peer reviewed paper are quite different.
There would be nothing wrong with the peer review process being open to the public so long as the participants all know it is public and the author does not try to pick and choose what goes public. That would seem to be obvious, but in any endeavor, a lot of people have trouble spotting the obvious.
They want you to say something they can use.
That is what they do.
Ya know, committees may not be the best way to do a LOT of things, but given a few hours to chew it over, they can come up with ALL the possible trickery, sneakiness, or potential downsides for a given situation.
Well done Team WUWT!
Let the fools rush in where wise men never go.
Watts:
I would forward to email from the media outlet to the author of the paper, and the media outlet representative at the same time and ask: “What gives?”. I really think you need to be completely transparent with both of them, otherwise it could look bad for you, regardless of how this came to pass. It may even help to add a neutral third party that is sworn to secrecy, as you have been on the original paper, as a CC that can monitor and be witness(a lawyer may be best) to the whole proceedings. I always believe in CYA!!
Roy Weiler
Anthony,
You’re a decent and honest man. Say nothing to the journalist. Leave it there.
You should feel proud that an ‘anti-science (c)JoeRomm’ blogger such as yourself has been asked to give their input to a scientific paper.
The best of wishes,
Andy
Love it when lawyers and lawyers in waiting weigh in on matters of morality and principle. The law is neither moral nor principled, but is rather, as Bumble said “…a ass.” Honor your agreement.
Maybe you should alert the reporter to the contents of this specific blog item!
I’m a bit confused. This:
and this:
don’t match up. Is the “quandry” a hypothetical, a question about ‘the principle of the thing’? Or is there still a significant error beyond the small corrections you sent along? Were the corrections you sent specific to the citation of your work?
REPLY: The larger error was discovered yesterday, after a second look at the paper. The other smaller errors were noted and sent over a week ago. The error is significant enough IMHO that they’ll have to re-run the analysis. – Anthony
Anthony: “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!”
Anthony, the scientist is providing you with a courtesy copy of the paper in your capacity as a published author, but asking you for confidentiality as a blog owner, ie that you don’t post the paper and any comment on your blog.
The newspaper is apparently not being bound by the same confidentiality, so you are free to comment in that publication.
It’s a way of giving first dibs to the media outlet, as well as controlling the way the information is disbursed. Presumably, the scientist has some concerns about the way you might handle the information, and wants to ensure a “friendly” reception.
It’s a bit cheeky, although not obviously unethical.
Anthony: This is a trap. How do you know that the editor who made the request does not have a leaked copy or is on a fishing expedition? He wants to get a jump on media competitors. If he has a leaked copy is it the same as yours?
My recommendation similar to many other is to tell the editor no, I will not comment. I would send the author an email a let him or her know that the editor contacted you and that some one has leaked a copy. Ignore the error. The author already knows that you have found an error and if I were that person I would immediately contact you and apologize. If it is published with the error then you can comment.
Anthony,
I recommend you stay out of it until the paper is published.
You cannot know what the final product will be and therefore should not get into a discussion of somebody’s unpublished, non-peer reviewed paper. With or without the author’s permission. To agree to discuss anything with the media when nobody knows the future of this document I say “no comment until everyone sees the final work in print.”
Besides, you are a media outlet.
Anthony
The question that needs answering is how does your press contact know you have the paper?
If the answer to that is that the author has told him, then simply get directions from the author.
If the author hasn’t told him then there are forces at play trying to manipulate you.
Of course, the worst case scenario here is that the author and the press contact are conspiring; to try and get you to breach the authors confidentiallity and then expose you for doing so. I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist but my “radar” here is going nuts.
So who is to blame?
Is it the scientist who has forwarded it to the media? Did the scientist expect it to be published or did the scientist naively not put any restrictions on its publication.
Is it the reporter? Does the reporter expect to print anything that comes onto his/her desk even if it has not passed peer review? Is the reporter ignoring the conditions placed on publication?
To many questions remain unanswered.
Anthony
Your integrity and ethics is to be commended!
Many here are commenting that something doesn’t seem right, and I am in agreement with them.
Why would the editor have your name anyway? What relevance would it have if the paper has not even passed peer review yet?
That, and the fact that the author asked for your confidentiality, then gave a copy to the press, along with, presumably, the fact that you were sent an advanced copy as well.
Something stinks here. My opinion is to CYA. ( Cover Your ***) Tell the editor you are not able to respond to his questions, then tell the author of the paper the errors noted, and be done with it.
Above all, keep documentation!
Best of luck,
J. Felton
Anthony,
Just a guess but I am pretty sure a little voice whispered “RUN” in your head otherwise you wouldn’t have posted. Personal experience has taught me to listen to that little voice. Advising the author of the error is the only safe way out. Anything else is just risk with no reward.
I think you did the right thing, even putting a note up on WUWT about it. As others have said, you are probably morally entitled to respond given that the author sent it to the media, but we know there are two ethical standards at work here, an impossibly high one for skeptics and gutter trash behaviour for alarmists. You have done your best to defend your assessment without infringing on any commitment you made.
All you do is give an off the record background briefing suggesting what one would think about a potential type of analysis. Then ask journalist if he would accept and embargoed detailed analysis, to be used after the pre-print appears online.
Big Question:
Are they the same paper? That is, does your copy match the reporter’s copy?
You have a history of posts about papers, and using the pre-print version. Your copy has a major flaw. When the time comes, you’d be blogging about the one sent you, and mentioning the flaw. Well, if at the same time what gets revealed by the regular media doesn’t have that flaw, or is otherwise notably different… At least it’ll be embarrassing. The likes of a certain unprincipled rabbit, a gold seeker, and that sometimes musician may just say you made it all up, that you’re trying to fraudulently smear a good scientist.
Who sent you that paper, and how much do you trust them?