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.
ZT says:
October 15, 2011 at 2:10 pm
No scientists, save perhaps Pons and Fleischmann, have ever put together press packets prior to publication (let alone acceptance) of a paper.
———–
Glad to see Pons and Fleischmann of cold fusion fame mentioned here as this was the first thought to come to my mind. They were (and continue to be) roundly scorned for going public before publishing in peer reviewed literature and getting peer feedback.
While peer-review has rightly taken a beating here, publication by msm is pure politics. Something to be avoided at all costs. I’m with everyone here who advises you to hold your peace and await events. My sympathies, as this is indeed an intolerable imposition on this scientist’s part.
To the Reporter: “I can not comment on this paper because of a confidentiality agreement. The paper has not yet been peer reviewed. Such papers can and do sometimes contain significant errors which are found in the review process, and must be corrected before a meaningful conclusion can be attained. It could diminish the credibility of the researcher, the reporter, and the publication, and be a disservice to the publication’s readers, to discuss any research prior to the peer review process.”
If you did this you would not be breaking the confidentiality and only be making broad, sweeping statements concerning the dangers of publishing non-reviewed research to the general public. But most importantly, unless the reporter’s brain is as dense as a brick, he would realize that the paper in question may have a major problem. This gives the reporter a chance to maintain his credibility by postponing the story until the peer review process has finished. If the reporter still publishes as intended, then you will know that both the reporter and the researcher are only interested in publicity.
Insist on getting a copy of the reporter’s copy of the paper to confirm that it still has the glaring errors that have been noted. In your response inform him that errors have been found in his version that are in the process of being corrected, but do not identify where or what those errors are.
Then give the reporter some good lines on why it is important that papers not be released before peer review and corrections have been completed. Hopefully he will quote those lines instead of the flawed paper.
We can all guess who the respected scientist is that pre-leaked this ‘paper’ Some have an odd habit of ‘leaking’ preliminary findings in congressional testimony. Tell the author you’ve found an ‘big’ error and you won’t talk to the reporter until the author allows you to, but that you will mention the error to the reporter. It’s the authors job to clean up and contain the mess in his science, publicity attempts and interpersonal relationships. Not your problem to solve. It’s all on him to get some ethics, real soon.
[M]r. Watts:
I would first like to commend you for trying, not only to find the high road but to take it, and not only in this instance. As one person who commented suggested, it is one of the reasons I have been a long time reader of this blog. I will also apologize up front for the length of this comment.
It seems to me that there are a couple of aspects to this issue: (1) what are your legal obligations and (2) what is the “right” thing to do. As an intellectual property attorney with over 30 years of experience in this area I decided to write, because this is the first time I’ve been able contribute. Even so, I recognize the feelings of some of the people who have commented about attorneys. Feel free to take all of this with a grain of salt.
What are your legal obligations?
From this perspective, this isn’t even a close call. With all due respect to Dan in California, Starzmom and Paul Westhaver have it exactly right. You have no obligation of confidentiality.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the request for confidentiality accompanying the paper and your tacit acknowledgement of it constituted an enforceable agreement (which is very doubtful, by the way), these types of agreements are not one-way streets. Each person (I’ll avoid using “parties” in deference to those who don’t like lawyers) has the same obligation to keep it confidential. You keep it confidential as long as the owner/author does. If the author releases it to the public domain, that automatically releases you from your obligation.
In this instance, the author sent it to a reporter who was not under the same obligation as you. Why do I say this? Because the reporter him/herself told you it was to be published. Once the information from the paper was given to a person who was under no obligation of confidentiality with respect to the information and who the author knew was to make it public, that act constitutes a publication. It’s not even a close call. You have no legal obligation.
What is the right thing to do?
This is a bit trickier. I have to read between the lines and make some assumptions here. One of them is that you have a relationship with the author and want to do right by him/her. (I make this assumption on the feeling that the author felt comfortable asking you for comments, and you felt comfortable, at least until the reporter got involved, in making them.) Another is that you don’t want to be perceived as taking the easy way out. Along with many who have commented here, I think this is commendable.
However, I would also say that, in a way similar to the legal perspective, the moral perspective as well is a two-way street. The author expected you to keep it confidential, but that expectation would be reasonable only if the author had every intention to keep it confidential as well. That seems to be lacking here.
The author took advantage of a friendship/professional relationship/whatever by expecting you to adhere to a course of action that the author him/herself was not expecting to follow.
I understand the counsel you’ve received to take the high road, but that only makes you a martyr. That doesn’t necessarily make it right.
If this were me, and if I were friends with the author, I would ask why I was put in this position and ask them, as a friend, to make it right by asking the reporter not to report it. If the author refused, I would feel released from my obligation. The decision would then be based on whether I wanted to remain friends with the author. If I spoke out to the reporter, I understand I may lose a friend.
If it were a professional relationship, I would be a little more up front and demanding to have it made right. My feeling is that professionals acting unprofessionally must live with their own decisions.
Again, I’m sorry for the length of this comment.
REPLY: No worries on length, I did make an edit to your comment, the first line. You addressed me as “Dr. ” Watts which I changed to “Mr”, since I do not hold a PhD. – Anthony
Ever see “All The President’s Men”? You should have the reporter read you the article draft, and when he gets to the glaring error you hang up on him…
I am going to suggest something here that I have been contemplating for a while now about scientific publishing of articles. Now I understand the reason for the peer review system as it would give a publication (whose success is based on the quality of the science that it publishes) a quality control check of its content. Now in the days of paper journals, this is important because once it is in print, it is permanent. However, I think that this paradigm should change in the age of electronic publication. Here is how I suggest things should work.
One or more persons do research on a subject and the get the work to the state where it is ready for publication. When they submit it to the journal in question, they have a choice. The first option is to wait for the peer review process, respond to any comments or corrections and then have the piece published as a peer-review piece of research including all data and calculation processes performed to get the results. The second option is to have a more immediate publication of their research as a “draft” for public comment, also including data and calculation processes performed to get the results. This is likely to draw a wider range of responses both in terms of quality and quantity. The peer review process would still occur in parallel, and the result of both sets of scrutiny may cause changes and/or corrections in the final peer reviewed work.
The point about this is that the researchers choose how their work is treated and if they feel that the peer review process is too lengthy or political, then there is an “express” option that has more reputation risk associated with it. The publication is not at fault in either case and the MSM will pick up on what it wants to, but using the “draft” output has risks that they have to accept on their own heads.
Just saying …
I think you should make the Author aware of the bigger problem you recently found with as much detail as to how it is wrong and suggestions on ways to fix the problem in the most help full and courteous manner that you usually carry forward in this blog. Let him decide to further postpone the release of the paper, or do the rework needed to keep the truth in the fore, so the paper has meaning and true substance when it finally comes out.
Past performance, in not a guaranty of future personal behavior on the part of the author, you should give him all the information you can for him to preform the due diligence needed to write his own paper. Adding validity to the content of others papers who ask for review would be the first step in peer review comments, toward corrections before publication, it is what I would want you to do for me, if I asked you to review my project.
Mark Warfield;
I’m not a lawyer but I have to deal with them a lot 😉
You’re analysis is from the perspective of intellectual propertly law, rather than non-disclosure agreements. I’d think the latter is what is at play here. Again, I’m not lawyer, but I’ve got my signature on so many NDA’s that I need a spreadheet to track them.
In general, and information received under NDA remains confidential UNLESS the recipient of the information is given permission to discuss it OR the recipient becomes aware of the information through another (legitimate) source not governed by confidentiality.
In this case Mr Watts remains under confidentiality. He has agreed to it, and even though the author of the paper has admitted to sending it to the reporter that in turn contacted Mr Watts, Mr. Watts CANNOT comment on it. If the reporter sends a paper to Mr Watts and asks for comment on it, then Mr Watts can do so, if he wishes too. But if the reporter DOESN’T send a copy to Mr. Watts, then Mr. Watts cannot comment EVEN IF the author of the paper gives him permission to speak to the reporter in that regard. The reason being that Mr Watts CANNOT verify that the paper he is commenting on that was sent to him by the author, and the paper being held by the reporter are in fact the same.
Mr Watts is correct that this sequence of events puts him in a position where he has no choice EXCEPT to refuse comment, and as many commentors have suggested, this sounds suspiscously like a set up of some sort. Documenting the facts and taking the high road are exactly the right things to do. Having done so, whatever hidden agenda (if any) was at play, I suspect Anthony just blew it to smithereens by NOT commenting but documenting publicly the sequence of events.
Anthony,
Within experimental high energy physics community, it is well known that some media outlet are looking more after sensational news/quotes, rather than carefully worded statements (which may look boring). This is why these days, big scientific experiments and laboratories in high-energy physics have very strict rule about communicating with media. There are media out there though, who are rather scientifically-literate, and they will try their best to present a scientific result as it really is. Going back to climate change and global warming, I don’t see much differences. There are scientists who will take this opportunity to pre-announce their scientific results (and maybe even to make headlines of them) by sending their confidential preprints to the media.
I also need to point out that sending a preprint intentionally to the media doesn’t always means bypassing peer-review. Again, in physics, there is a preprint server which allows physicists to post their preprints to the public. In principle, if the preprints you are reviewing now is already available for public somewhere, the authors are not guilty for sending the preprint to the media. The preprint is public anyway, and the authors is free to try their luck at promoting their work, but it is not a crime. A questionable act in any case.
In any case, I wholeheartedly support your decision to keep your confidentiality. It is the RIGHT thing to do in this case.
REPLY: Thanks, the preprint is not publicly available anywhere yet – Anthony
Asking you to comment on a draft paper which you have not even seen (unless the reporter has sent you his/her version) and without even being able to demonstrate that the author has agreed to seeking your comments is about the standard of ethics and practice we have come to expect from ‘science journalists’. I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.
As for the author, only you can assess whether this is incompetence or something else, as only you know the person. But giving a pet journalist a head start on a paper that has not yet been fully reviewed, let alone published, does not uphold even basic standards of scientific integrity, IMO. And, giving out your name as a potential source for an article about it without your permission is just plain rude.
The issue isn’t confidentiality as much as turbo peer review. I would’ve asked the journalist if and when the paper had been accepted for publication, or if the upcoming big piece were based on a paper still to be peer reviewed. Better yet I would have done it over a recorded phone call, in order to warrant a reply. There’s nothing preventing the publicity seeking original authors from lying to Anthony.
Don’t discuss the paper with the reporter, but DO inform him/her about the awkward position you find yourself in. That is not confidential – not after this blog post!
@ur momisugly Anthony; among many things, I know you to be a man of ethics. To hell with what others think. It is not your place to correct others mistakes, after the fact. Just do what is right to you. The author already blew his chance by giving a heads up to a reporter, now it is public. pg
Mark Warfield: “The author expected you to keep it confidential, but that expectation would be reasonable only if the author had every intention to keep it confidential as well.”
I disagree. Anthony became aware of the paper’s contents by way of his role as a research author. He was asked to respect confidentiality until the authors had publicised the paper.
The way in which the paper’s authors go about publishing their paper has no bearing on the requirement on Anthony for confidentiality. Anyone can offer an exclusive to a media outlet. (Although it’s not clear how this would square with peer review and journal publication in this particular case, but we don’t have enough information to make a judgement on those matters.)
The issue is exacerbated by Anthony’s role as blogger, where there is a conflict with his role as research author. Not only can he not make any comment on the paper as a blogger, but is being asked to contribute to an article in another media outlet.
That’s certainly galling, and the confidentiality requirement looks like a deliberate set-up, but no doubt the authors see it as a way of protecting their own interests.
Well done!
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!”
I believe what the author meant was “please dont pass this along to others”. The author gave you a copy of the paper. You found an error. The author also gave a copy to the media. You are both bound by a confidential agreement which I take to be.. “dont pass the paper around.” But if the media person asks you what you think of it, just tell the truth. I read it, I found an error, I’ve alerted the author. you don’t even have to explain what the error is.. in fact by writing this post you’ve done all you need to do.
You are not breaking a confidentiality agreement by explaining to the media that you read the paper and found an error. Like I said, you’ve done all you need to do. The author knows you’ve found an error, the media knows, what they do with that is on them. You have no obligation to explain the error to the media, personally I would not explain the error to the author unless he gave me credit.
If the existence of the confidentiality agreement was itself confidential that would be another matter
Anthony we are entering a post normal peer review stage 🙁
Have a look on this “embargo” business and the link therein, to see which way the winds are blowing. You have just been “embargoed”.
This is not for you Anthony, BUT never, never, never do anything ‘off the record’ with reporters. These people are slime balls and will use anything you do or say “off the record” if it gives the opportunity for which they search.
I wonder what would have happened over at other blogs (no names, no pack drill) had the owners been put in your position Anthony.
Anthony, you are a reporter, editor and publisher of news, facts, analysis and opinion. You run a revenue producing blog that is paid for delivering eyeballs to advertisers.
A scientist sent you a copy of his paper asking that you not publish or comment publically “until we post it ourselves” whatever that means
.
The scientist sent a copy of the paper to a competitor (a major global media outlet) so that he could write and publish “a pretty big piece next week.” And then the competitor asked you for comment.
You owe nothing, NOTHING, to the scientist. He favored your competitor with an exclusive. Publish TODAY. Right NOW. If you sit back and let these people walk all over you and your brand then you are sitting back and letting them walk all over you. Stand up and SHOUT. This is not a gentleman’s business conducted in a mahogany and leather faculty lounge. This is business.
Anthony,
(in reply to Speed’s comment) – careful. You would be vilified in certain quarters for breaking such an embargo. Is it possible this is a set up with such action the secretly hoped-for outcome?
On the other hand the reporter’s timescale of “next week” may have only been a ruse to expedite a reply from you (we all say to this to various people at times). All you can do is question both the scientist and the journalist as to the actual timescale of publication, and question the ethics/duplicity of their actions if the scientist has one rule for you but has enabled the journalist circumvent the requirement placed on you.
Usually confidentiality only applies to something not in the public domain. Informing the media – even a medium – certainly puts something in the public domain, since clearly the journalist has not been bound by confidentiality otherwise he would not have contacted you Anthony. He may have course broken his confidentiality agreement, but even so it is now in the public domain.
You cannot keep something confidential that is not.
Seems an ethical path is to communicate only with the author and to give him permission (or not) to pass it on to the reporter. At this stage of the paper’s publication it seems unwise to discuss it with a reporter, even if the author were to suggest/hint that it is OK.
John
Quietly tell the author about the mistake.
Politely decline to discuss the paper with the reporter.
Probably there is no malice here; more like inexperience (on the reporter’s part) and a lack of knowledge of the process. No question, however, that you were placed in an untenable position, Anthony.
This is one of those cases where your response is best made by implication. Say to the reporter: “comments are not useful until the paper has gone through peer review and been accepted for publication, as it is reasonable to expect it will be improved and perhaps even changed by the process”. That keeps you clean and aboveboard by all standards as well as suggesting to any competent reporter the unspoken possibility the paper might not pass review at all.
Then contact the author and say that as you do not wish to endanger the publication of his paper, before speaking with the reporter you would contact the editor of the journal and request a ruling on whether such actions are permitted under their standards.
That puts everyone on notice without actually saying anything that could be considered confrontational.
One suspects you are not the only informal reviewer to have been involved in this way.
———— (above was serious; below is slightly sarcastic) —————-
Another possibility would be to invite the author to publish his draft paper here on WUWT and invite the reporter to monitor the ensuing discussion — sort of warp speed peer review. The author would of course then be free to use any comments to improve his paper and re-submit to the journal.