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 sequence, as reported in the post, was that the author sent the proposed text along with a “request” for confidentiality. That implies no duty, only a request. You did not assent by opening the email. Decline the invitation for confidentiality, as it was violated by the author anyway.
Submit your comment to the media outlet in confidence. They can cite you as “an expert in meteorology and climate change, who asked not to be named”. In which case the author might actually prefer you to allow you name to stand, but you would only be complying with his request.
Bruce of Newcastle says:
October 15, 2011 at 2:51 pm
“Publicity or perish.”
Yes – this succinctly describes the state of climate science publishing these days.
It will be interesting to see the newspaper headline, but I predict it will be something like … “Report: Global temperatures highest in 10,000 years!”
Since the reporter knows you have received a pre-print copy of the article, it’s OK to say that, yes you received a copy. Without discussing the actual contents of the paper, you also can tell the reporter that you have identified a major defect in the paper, and that you have sent a detailed explanation to the author.
Further, tell the rporter that, since you’re bound by a confidentiality agreement on the contents of the article, he/she will need to contact the author regarding the paper error.
Sounds like a set-up to me.
Choosing the simplest explanation. Someone with a submitted paper wanted to leak it to the public BEFORE reviewed publication. The author, did not want to appear to be leaking it himself, so sent you a copy for review. He reasoned that you would go ahead and publish based on the contrary reputation of skeptics (despite his request for confidentiality). When you disappointed him, he then leaked it to a reporter and supplied him with your name.
Now, you have responded in an unexpected manner, throwing a monkey wrench into his carefully planned execution. You have ruined everything. Can’t you just play ball like everyone else? GK
Mark Warfield says: October 15, 2011 at 8:40 pm
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.
—————————————————————————————-
Sir: I bow to your knowledge and concede you are technically correct. But after your reputation is publicly lynched in the mainstream media, and after spending $300K legally defending yourself, it’s of little consolation that you won the court case.
Monique says:
October 16, 2011 at 5:47 am
[…]
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.
Alan Watt says:
October 16, 2011 at 6:12 am
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.
I agree with these two. Its “easy to ascribe malice, when simple incompetence would have sufficed”.
Without knowing anything more than what is provided in this post, I would glean that the author sent you a copy for your review and comments as a professional courtesy, and a copy to the journalist in the same manner, on the full expectation that the paper would be published in the short due course. My suspicion is that the author has professional confidence in both you and the journalist, and has essentially extended a request of confidentially to both of you, and has told the journalist that. The journalist then assumes he can discuss the paper with you under a shared blanket of confidentiality. This is a common circumstance where there is no perceived malice expected to be entertained by all parties and casual exchange requested. The problem has arisen that there are multiple errors apparent in the material. There now is an expectation of contextual conflict in commentary about the substance, which may or may not get dragged into the error pit. Because of this latter fact, Alan Watts’ comment above is right on. “Let’s let the dust settle first”. Better to be quiet and thought a fool, then to open one’s mouth and provide fodder for the trolls of this world…” (c)2011 P.Coppin /sarc 🙂
Some further thoughts… A good journalist ( I can say this because I have no idea who the journalist is 🙂 likes counterpoint in their reportage, especially so when there are divided opinions about truth or facts in a topic. Good reporters use this as a means to providing a balance of opinions in their reports since they themselves will acknowledge no special expertise on the topic. The reporter is covering his bases in anticipation of the science article being published and of his article being published. The scientist has jumped the gun, if not the shark, by assuming his work is without serious criticism.
@Anothony
“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.”
You don’t seem to understand how these things work. Newbies must follow the rules. The established scientist at the major university is above the rules.
I haven’t read every comment here, but I have probably read more than half of them. One question I haven’t seen is whether or not the authors are pro-AGW or skeptic? I guess everyone assumes that no skeptic authors would do what these authors have done, but nothing I see in Anthony’s head post that eliminates them as authors.
My personal take would be that I wouldn’t have said anything here but made sure some people were sent the info on the QT in case there were later repercussions. I would have sent the authors the later error finding and turned down the reporter.
I think this is a tempest in a teapot. However, computer models predict that, due to carbon admissions, this kind of tempest may lead to rising see levels for the paper in question (measured at the peer) and increasingly warm winds, possibly even hot air circulating through the blogosphere. Clearly this calls for pro-active legislative initiatives before it is too late.
1. Refuse to comment to media.
2. Return your pre-release copy to the author without comment.
Okay, it’s Monday, is there a news story?
REPLY: I’m told it will be published on the 20th, synchronized with the release of the paper. – Anthony
Agree with others. You’re being set up. Walk away from the commentary. Tell the reporter that you can not comment until the paper is actually published.
I don’t know exactly what the game plan is, but it can’t be good. Don’t play the game.
Set up.
They want Anthony Watts to shut up, and this was their plan. They didn’t foresee an ethical opponent. That is called projection.
Legal issue: doubt it, but defer to the lawyers on this. Clearly, the journalist representing that he has the same article as you were given needs to be confirmed before you would talk to him.
Ethical issue: The scientist may have a relationship of trust with the journalist (these do exist—journalists like to cultivate and maintain sources) and may have confidence that the journalist will not publish an article before the scientist’s work is peer-approved and ready for publishing. He may have given the journalist your name, or some other person within the circle of knowledge (administrative assistant, science colleague, other person with whom the scientist was indiscreet and to whom he boasted “I have even asked that skeptic Watts for comment….) may have tipped off the journalist. Ethical response for you: call author, review situation, ask for permission to talk to journalist.
Practical Issue: This is about the future. Specifically the chance that this scientist or others who become aware of your choices here may ask you to look at their work in the future (and assuming you would want that): Again, your solution is to call that author and clarify his/her wishes.
For all of us regular folks who value this blog, your being tapped in to the mainstream and the eddies of work in climate science is valuable. Just like in the Trenberth meeting, we want you involved. There is no person on Earth we trust more on these issues than Anthony Watts. And after all, as the saintly Algore would say, the Earth is in the balance.
There’s a tactic called “dead lettering” in which someone with an inconvenient access to information is discredited in advance by inducing them to make an incriminating or compromising statement or similar. A kind of covert “gotcha” set-up scheme. [re-posted without the verboten synonym which sent the prev. Reply into the nozone.]
This has many of the earmarks.