Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Merck/Schering-Plough: Waiting for J&J To Raise Their Hand | Main | Bacteria: Respect Must Be Paid »

March 10, 2009

Don't Like It? Well, Just Don't Cite It!

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

You know, this is a comparatively minor sin, but it's an irritating one. I was browsing through my Google Reader list of chemistry journals, and this paper caught my eye. It's from a group in Hyderabad, and describes a preparation of propargylamines using indium bromide. "I've seen that reaction before," I thought.

And sure enough, here's a 2005 paper from a group in Tokyo which describes the preparation of (among other things) propargyl amines using. . .indium bromide. The details are slightly different, but it seems clear that these reactions are proceeding through the same sorts of intermediates. The earlier Tokyo reaction uses N,O acetals, while the Hyderabad one starts from the amine and aldehydes (which, to give them their due, is more convenient).

So fine, the new paper is a reasonable way to make these compounds. But what gets on my nerves is that its abstract reads:

"Indium(III) bromide has been used for the first time for the synthesis of propargyl amines in a one-pot operation from aldehydes,
amines and alkynes. This is the first example on the use of InBr3 for the activation of both alkyne and aryl imine."

And what's more, it doesn't even reference the earlier Japanese work. What's more, the Japanese authors actually published a preliminary communication of their work in 2003, in Tetrahedron Letters, the same journal that the new paper appears in. As I say, I realize that this is a (comparatively) minor sin. And I realize that it goes on all, all, all the time. But it's still wrong. And someone should have called the authors on it when the paper was reviewed.

Comments (45) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature


COMMENTS

1. drug_hunter on March 10, 2009 9:45 AM writes...

Good catch, Derek.

I think the simple fact is that very few scientists are willing to put enough time in to properly review new manuscripts. As a consequence, more and more shoddy science finds its way into the literature. I don't suppose we can mandate having everyone spend 5% of their time in reviews, but short of that, what practical suggestions can we make to help alleviate this problem?

Permalink to Comment

2. Hap on March 10, 2009 10:02 AM writes...

One of my coworkers cited experience where she was enjoined from reviewing further manuscripts because she was too harsh to the ones she received. If that's accurate, removing that constraint would help - but if publishing whatever comes down the pipe is a journal's intent (and accepting whatever fees come with it) then I don't know how a little thing such as forgetting to cite the immediate origins of your research would be a problem for them.

Permalink to Comment

3. Vlad on March 10, 2009 10:13 AM writes...

Just got back from the conference where one of abstracts contained words "This is the first time it was described"... Considering that I talked with the author of the abstract last year near my abstract showing that for the "real first time", that phrase caught my eye. Luckily, the guy was persuaded to drop his claim from the submitted paper (ours got stuck in Nature review process) and reference my work. But yes, it's too common to claim to be first one - otherwise the paper oses its sexiness and has less chances to be published.

Permalink to Comment

4. Mark M on March 10, 2009 10:54 AM writes...

Definitely a minor sin compared to this:

http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2009/03/when-academics-go-wild-scott-reuben-md.html


I think Retread mentioned something a week ago about propagation of misinformation in the medical literature. While I'm not an MD, I do know that anesthesia is serious business and is highly patient-dependent. I sure hope no one died from Dr. Reuben's falsifications.

Permalink to Comment

5. RET on March 10, 2009 11:00 AM writes...

There is no doubt in my mind that the peer review system is somewhat broken. The increased number of published papers and discipline specific journals has made it very difficult for even dedicated researchers to keep up with the literature. Some journal editors have lowered standards due to competition and the desire to balance contributions from various research and geographic areas. Once high quality journals (JOC for example had the highest standard for experimental quality) are now peppered with weaker contributions which doesn't make it easy for people to read broadly. The final nail in the coffin is an individual's perception of being overwhelmed. These same researchers are feeling they don't have the time to provide a quality review so its done quickly or refused and given to researchers with inappropriate expertise.

Permalink to Comment

6. CMC Guy on March 10, 2009 11:51 AM writes...

With the On-line Literature Searching Tools available these days, although not fool proof, it does seem odd anyone would express a "first ever" claim without thorough trolling. Perhaps these authors did not have ready access but would trust the TL editors/reviewers might do some checking (although not really responsible for doing that). As per recent post re Patents there is an absolute obligation to cite precedent work and can get you in deep trouble if don't (intentional or not).

In a way reminds me of the recent Djarssi C&EN Letter regarding Trost's poor/inadequate citing of Pettit's Natural Products discoveries. Again not the same issue (and not certain of actual details in Trost papers) but failures to appropriate credit and acknowledge past efforts is all to common and is indeed wrong.

Permalink to Comment

7. SRC on March 10, 2009 12:05 PM writes...

I've been on the wrong end of one of those.

Someone who shall remain nameless essentially (but certainly did not need to do this) republished our work (in JACS, as was the submitted article). We'd drawn upon papers in microwave spectroscopy, stat mech studies on polymers, and our own work to generate rules for predicting the preferred conformations in macrocycles.

Working with similar compounds, our admirer cited the sources cited in our paper and then, mirabile dictu, came up with rules for predicting the conformations. (The malefactor covered herself by saying "others have worked in this field [ref 1-30]" and citing us as reference something like 12(j), so that while technically we were referenced, the reference was buried in the middle of a three-inch column of references that few would ever read. No indication whatever that reference 12(j) disclosed precisely the same rules that were the point of her paper.)

I was one of the reviewers, but thought it ungentlemanly to urge my own case, so I hoped instead that the other reviewer would do so. Nope. Older and wiser now, I realize I should have called the editor. C'est la vie.

Permalink to Comment

8. kevin on March 10, 2009 1:28 PM writes...

Sadly, I've had to resort to the who/where test to discern what is worth reading. If it isn't someone I've heard of, or if it isn't a 'good' institution, I can't waste my time.

Permalink to Comment

9. anon the II on March 10, 2009 1:47 PM writes...

A number of years ago, I used to get JOC papers to review. Once I rejected a paper from a big name dude at a big name institute, because he was publishing the same thing for the 3rd time. He was clearly milking it.

I never got another paper to review.

Permalink to Comment

10. Sili on March 10, 2009 2:30 PM writes...

Slightly off-topic, but do chemistry have something like the preprint-servers of maths and physics?

Permalink to Comment

11. Anon the III on March 10, 2009 3:50 PM writes...

Grilling a paper as a "rehash" or "insignificant additional iteration" will get you tossed as a reviewer in 75% of the cases. There has been one example I can think of in my experience where the editor actually even listened (EJIC).

Permalink to Comment

12. BCP on March 10, 2009 4:23 PM writes...

@SRC - yup, a similar thing happened to me. We put out a Tet lett just over 10yrs ago and found a very similar paper in the same journal, the next year which was basically a cut/paste of our article - layout, intro/concluding paragraphs.

The chemistry was subtly different, but it was clearly an act of intellectual laziness on the part of the second set of authors, and on the part of the reviewers of the second paper. What was even more strange was that they actually did cite our paper - clearly no-one bothered to look at the citing references.

One lives and learns.

Permalink to Comment

13. happens here too on March 10, 2009 5:33 PM writes...

Let me give you the specific example of M J Krische from U Texas.He has been publishing his rhodium catalyszed hydrogenation with dienes, diynes, enynes, and aldehydes, glyoxals, imines, each in a separate JACS paper each time.Talk about microscopic advance each time...He has done good work but there has been tremendous repetetion with JACS tacit approval.
I find it offensive that you guyz pick up on an Indian/Chinese paper and not on ppl like krische.May I ask why?

Permalink to Comment

14. Shane on March 10, 2009 5:51 PM writes...

This is yet another unintended consequence of the progress of scientist's careers depending on the number of papers they crank out. The quality goes down, the journals turn into mutual back scratching clubs, and the peer review process becomes little more than a best friends club. And on top of that the literature balloons to such an extent that people can make a reasonable case for there being too much out there to easily get a handle on.
Technology once again equates to greater quantity and falling quality.

Permalink to Comment

15. happens here too on March 10, 2009 6:04 PM writes...

J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 4664
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 11488


J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 12644 and
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 8432.

One is asymmetric(BIPHEP and the substituted BIPHEP for asymmetric...probably only commercial ones available) but if you do a little work you could see the pattern...

Permalink to Comment

16. milkshake on March 10, 2009 6:04 PM writes...

This reminds me: I was reading a EJOC ASAP preprint paper from a German group few years back on a curious cyclization with ortho-cyanophenyl isocyanates and isothiocyanates that was billed as a first example and a novel reaction, both in the abstract and the main text. Since I was interested in making these compounds for our project and I wanted to know of the prior art, I quickly checked SciFinder and found out that these compounds have been already published 15 years before. And surprise - by the same reaction! It was buried deep in some J Med Chem paper but it was exactly the same thing. The only difference was the solvent - the German group in the EJOC paper used ethanol (in place of DMF) which made the workup easier as the product precipitated out of the reaction mix. And they highlighted the reaction. But it was complete re-hash - and I checked and the even cited this reference - and carefully worded around it! I wrote to the lead autor on the EJOC paper and pointed out the problem and asked him if he would re-word it to give proper credit to the other paper. it was a polite request and the dude was very defensive and basically replied that it is not my business and it was reviewed by the journal and I should shut up. So I wrote to the journal editor about the problem and forwarded him the e-mail exchange - and I never got any response...

PS: Derek, you may want to fix a minor problem on this web site - everything now appears in Italics, I think someone forgot to close bracket in HTML.

Permalink to Comment

17. happens here too on March 10, 2009 6:04 PM writes...

The proof for the previous post...

J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 4664
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 11488


J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 12644 and
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 8432.

One is asymmetric(BIPHEP and the substituted BIPHEP for asymmetric...probably only commercial ones available) but if you do a little work you could see the pattern...

Permalink to Comment

18. Anonymous BMS Researcher on March 10, 2009 10:21 PM writes...


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=thousands-of-copycat-articles

Permalink to Comment

19. Ryan on March 10, 2009 11:35 PM writes...

I've been hearing these stories more and more, and the rest of the have covered the core issue well: Electronic tools make it easier to consume and produce more information, but the peer review process has not evolved accordingly.

So Shane's comment is right, but we could use technology to improve quality as well. Journals should perform some sort of mesh topic search as part of the peer review process if they want to stand by the integrity of their papers.

Permalink to Comment

20. Harry on March 11, 2009 6:38 AM writes...

Want to talk about milking it? Look into H.C. Brown's interminable series of hydroborations in JACS. I think at one point I read paper XXXVII in the series.


Permalink to Comment

21. Reviewer on March 11, 2009 7:02 AM writes...

I review manuscripts for JOC and have turned down quite a few that are essentially iterations of a previous paper....and am still reviewing for them. I had one recently where someone thought that taking a reaction out of the literature and doing it faster in a microwave warrented a JOC. Maybe in the 90's, dude, but a somewhat obvious things to do these days.

Permalink to Comment

22. Hap on March 11, 2009 10:36 AM writes...

HHT: 1) Far as I know, Krische hasn't actually copied anyone else's work, or relied on someone else's work either with or without cites. No one else does his stuff, and if it works it should be rather useful (no-metal allylations from allylic alcohols seems like a potentially useful reaction).

2) Lots of novel reactions are followed by similar reports of the asym. variants (allylation, for example?). That doesn't seem particularly egregious, particularly if they're actually useful.

I guess this compares well to, say, publishing bogus research or publishing other people's research...sixty-five times or so. If some dude here rather than in India does it, we'll feel free to rake him over the coals as well. (See: Cordova in Sweden).

Logic FAIL.

Permalink to Comment

23. Hap on March 11, 2009 2:44 PM writes...

correction: ...allylations not requiring organometallics - the catalysts are metals - duh.

Permalink to Comment

24. milkshake on March 11, 2009 3:00 PM writes...

If you look at boron and silicon-based allylation reagents you will find that they don't really need a metal. Allyl/crotyl borons are sufficiently nucleophilic to add without a catalyst (Roush), allylchlorosilanes are activated with a Lewis base (Denmark, Kocovsky)

Permalink to Comment

25. Hap on March 11, 2009 3:28 PM writes...

No, but you need a stoichiometric reagent somewhere (and for Roush's work, for example, a stoichiometric chiral reagent). Denmark's work is catalytic, but trichlorosilanes are probably not that fun to work with.

I would figure that since allyl alcohols are the source of lots of allylation reagents (except the boranes, which in some cases come from propene by lithiation), anything that allows you to work with them is easier than using their derived reagents (and having to make them). I don't remember the structural variations in Krische's work, but using allylic alcohols might also give you the equivalents of a a variety of functionalized allyl reagents that might be more difficult to get other ways.

Of course, I don't know if it works in real life, but if it does, it seems like the method would be a substantial improvement over either stoichiometric allyl reagents or (probably) Denmark's allyltrichlorosilanes.

Permalink to Comment

26. Inch on March 11, 2009 5:28 PM writes...

Of course there is a flip side to this discussion where reviewers insist the author references their work which is only marginally relevant (if at all). Only plus is that you know where the comments have come from.

Permalink to Comment

27. happens here too on March 11, 2009 5:46 PM writes...

Hap,
good non sequitur !
I did not talk about his allylations at all!
What abt the first 2 references where he reacts his diynes and then his eneynes with the dicarbonyls for two separate jacs communications...you think both of the papers merit a separate JACS publication?

Permalink to Comment

28. Hap on March 11, 2009 6:28 PM writes...

Great parry, but you still didn't really answer.

How exactly does his pubs (see HC Brown for more egregious examples) compare to, say, forgetting to reference someone else's origination of your work, at least when you are claiming it as yours?

Permalink to Comment

29. Hap on March 11, 2009 6:37 PM writes...

Oh, and so as not to dodge - yes. see paragraph 2 in my response.

I think you might want to have your moral equivalence circuit checked though - I think it's broken.

Permalink to Comment

30. Anonymous on March 11, 2009 7:09 PM writes...

Okk Hap
you seem to be a hard guy to please as well prove to...

Lets begin with the post..derek said this.."The details are slightly different, but it seems clear that these reactions are proceeding through the same sorts of intermediates.."

Now lets take Krische first paper...
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 15156.

Now I would have cited Morken's paper which came earlier with silanes..J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 4528.(..similar intermediates argument...)...wont you!

I found all these in the space of 15 minutes...and to think the repetetive nature of the methodology..
I agree totally that there are some good reactions in Krische portfolio but just because he has published better does not okk his useless repetetive ones.
Now couple it with the Morken paper..and I have proved my case!

Permalink to Comment

31. happens here too on March 11, 2009 7:11 PM writes...

Okk Hap
you seem to be a hard guy to please as well prove to...

Lets begin with the post..derek said this.."The details are slightly different, but it seems clear that these reactions are proceeding through the same sorts of intermediates.."

Now lets take Krische first paper...
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 15156.

Now I would have cited Morken's paper which came earlier with silanes..J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 4528.(..similar intermediates argument...)...wont you!

I found all these in the space of 15 minutes...and to think the repetetive nature of the methodology..
I agree totally that there are some good reactions in Krische portfolio but just because he has published better does not okk his useless repetetive ones.
Now couple it with the Morken paper..and I have proved my case!

Permalink to Comment

32. Hap on March 11, 2009 7:28 PM writes...

I'm trying to figure out how silane-mediated reductive aldols are all that similar to hydrogen-mediated reductive aldols - there's a stoichiometric reductant in both cases (and they might even be going through metal-hydride mediated intermediates), but that's about it.

If it's so obvious from Morken's work that H2 could mediate aldols from his catalyst system, let alone other reactions, why didn't he do it?

Permalink to Comment

33. happens here too on March 11, 2009 7:37 PM writes...

Hey Hap
The Indian guy can make the same argument..

Now lets look at the similarities between Krische and Morken's..

Both have aldehydes and vinyl esters/ketones
Both use rhodium catalysts/phosphines
both have same/similar products
Morken uses silanes and Krische uses hydrogen!


..and you think the reactions are dissimilar...

why dont you show the paper to Dr. Krische and ask him?Maybe he will have a better argument.
Bye

Permalink to Comment

34. Hap on March 11, 2009 8:55 PM writes...

Um, OK.

If you wanted to make that case, Noyori would have been a better choice (reduction of ketones with H2 comes a lot closer to using H2 as a hydride source than Morken's boranes/silanes, although no tandem type reaction which has to happen with the aldol).

When Krische "forgets" to reference Morken's paper doing the same reaction with the same catalyst, you can talk. Until then, I see "the Indian dude" doing a lot of rationalizing for not much gain. Unless it's a hobby or something, in which case I'm glad to help you out, because there are worse hobbies you could do.

Permalink to Comment

35. happens here too on March 11, 2009 9:30 PM writes...

..So by your argument if one publishes a natural product synthesis he does not have to cite the prior art (other synthesis )before since its not the 'same reaction(with the same catalyst)'.As far as I could see both the 'krische' and 'morken' products, reactants and catalysts were the same.In fact I find it intriguing that Krische always has used BINAP/Biphep in his other papers which Morken used in his initial paper...I did not get your Noyori argument(unless its intent was a sarcastic one!).

As far as me defending the 'indian dude' we will give it a rest as that was just a observation on my part...but I think the 'indian dude' shd be okk as he does not use the 'same conditions' and u shd not hv a problem with him not citing the japanese dudes!

But I do hv a problem with both...with Krische and the Indian dude!
although more wirh krische as he seems to hv a great genealogy..trost, lehn...

Permalink to Comment

36. eugene on March 11, 2009 10:52 PM writes...

Oh man, not this Krische stuff again. Didn't you people lynch the poor man on another blog?

Although, I do have to admit, I am rather envious of him getting the least publishable unit (LPU) out in JACS several times a year. If you closely read his papers, you'll notice that the reference section makes up at least 1/4th of the entire communication. If a reviewer finds themselves in that section, it is very hard for them to reject a paper. Plus, if I ever got a paper from him to review, I would be too scared to reject it due to him being a great professor and me being a nobody...

At least Krische is not blatantly copying others like the Indian dude. An ene-yne is definitely different from a diyne I suppose. And Rh is a lot cheaper than Ir. And maybe an -yne by itself catalyzed by Ir is sorta cool. Maybe a JOC cool and not a JACS, but who am I to argue with people who are smarter than me? Heyzeus, I can't wait for the 'heterogenyzed silica supported catalyst' or the 'calculational mechanistic insight' 10-20 page JACS epics and every new paper that I read just makes the suspense and the excitement that much bigger. It'll definitely be bedtime reading when that comes out (please God (er... Professor K.), in the next five years?).

There is always the option of establishing an H.C. Brown memorial award and giving it to our favorite author (based on popular write-in vote) over the Internet every year. I'm thinking an anonymous blog could do this. I personally don't consider LPU offenses to be a big sin (yet).

Permalink to Comment

37. Tex on March 12, 2009 9:22 AM writes...

The LPU is good for bean counters and padding resumes, but it bloats the literature and it is a burden on editors and reviewers. There have been complaints here and elsewhere about reviewers missing obvious errors, when your in-box explodes with review requests, and you don't want to piss editors off by refusing to review, this is what you get. Reviews that aren't as meticulous as they should be.

Permalink to Comment

38. Hap on March 12, 2009 10:34 AM writes...

1) I'm still wondering where the precedents for Krische's work are - because if it was obvious that the same catalyst system Morken used (which I'm guessing wasn't entirely novel) could be used to do hydrogenation aldols, why did no one else use it for that purpose? There still isn't really anyone else doing it, either.

2) If you discredit reactions using the same components, well, good luck getting a Diels-Alder paper anywhere.

3) I'm also trying to still figure out how publishing too many iterations of the same work is equivalent to copying and republishing someone else's work, or falsifying your research. With LPUs, they clog up journals (though, if the papers were compacted, there would be more substance in the single reviewed paper as in the ones reviewed separately) and are deceptive if you count papers in CV as achievement, but the work is what it is - no one is being deceived by it. I haven't got the moral equivalence down for that.

4) If you wanted examples of bad research elsewhere, LaClair's hexacyclinol synthesis (at minimum, no characterization or data, but likely, no synthesis either), Cordova's lines of research (and his students' unpersuasive rationalizing of its origins), Sames' retractions (and the lack of resolution on their causes), and the Trost/Djerassi fiesta would all have been more legitimate targets for venom.

Permalink to Comment

39. happens here too on March 12, 2009 7:25 PM writes...

Hap

Why the impassioned defence of Prof. Krische?
I never said he copied/plagarized.
All I argued was cite Prof. Morken because of prior art...and cribbed about his publishing microscopic advances of his work...in fact JACS review process is to blame where each one scratches the others back...
If it makes you feel any better, I love the simplicity of Prof. Krische's chemistry and its extraordinary elegance (although how it works with more complex substrates with multiple lewis basic binding sites is a matter that waits to be answered)
With respect to your points...
#1 See above...using hydrogen was his only selling point for the publication ..which is a pretty good one...
#2 only diels alder will never get you a JACS..if the work uses previously reported substrates it has to hv other selling points...asymmetric or hydrogen-bond catalysis etc. ...and of course cite the previous prior art
#3 you can publish your regular microscopic advances in JOC, Org Lett., Tet.Lett ....not in JACS Communications
#4 Irrelevant to this discussion as this is about citing other ppl's work/prior art and I would never indulge justifying copying's others work..
#5 I hv said what I hv to say abt this..will end here

Permalink to Comment

40. Hap on March 13, 2009 9:42 AM writes...

I don't have any reason to like Prof. Krische - he apparently is an honors graduate of the "Professors who don't play well with others" school, and he publishes a lot of smaller advances. His work does seem neat though - again, if it's so unnovel, where are the others doing it?

I guess I'm failing to understand your equivalence - you seem to focus an awful lot on him (for work uncited six years ago), in the presence of significantly more egregious acts, and it makes little sense to me why. Also, (4) wasn't all copiers - the last, for example, was a recent example of what you claimed for Krische (Trost didn't reference the isolation of the natural product he made, which bothered the professor whose student discovered it - it's a weaker example, because the isolation isn't very relevant to its synthesis). Sames's early C-H activation work involves some sort of falsification (whose is not clear yet, as well as other complicating issues), as probably does LaClair's hexacyclinol synthesis. Also, see Adventures in Ethics and Science for a really bad falsification example (prof falsifies entire line of research for fifteen years).

I don't think I'm the one with a lack of perspective or understanding here.

Permalink to Comment

41. Anonymous on March 13, 2009 6:49 PM writes...

28. Hap on March 11, 2009 6:28 PM writes...

Great parry, but you still didn't really answer.

How exactly does his pubs (see HC Brown for more egregious examples) compare to, say, forgetting to reference someone else's origination of your work, at least when you are claiming it as yours?

Permalink to Comment

42. Anonymous on March 13, 2009 7:01 PM writes...

22. Hap on March 11, 2009 10:36 AM writes...

HHT: 1) Far as I know, Krische hasn't actually copied anyone else's work, or relied on someone else's work either with or without cites. No one else does his stuff, and if it works it should be rather useful (no-metal allylations from allylic alcohols seems like a potentially useful reaction).

2) Lots of novel reactions are followed by similar reports of the asym. variants (allylation, for example?). That doesn't seem particularly egregious, particularly if they're actually useful.

I guess this compares well to, say, publishing bogus research or publishing other people's research...sixty-five times or so. If some dude here rather than in India does it, we'll feel free to rake him over the coals as well. (See: Cordova in Sweden).

Logic FAIL.

Permalink to Comment

43. Anonymous Big Pharma Researcher on March 18, 2009 7:12 PM writes...

My parents are retired academics, and can they ever tell plagiarism stories. My favorite is the time Dad took a student's paper to the colleague in his department who specialized in the subject of the paper and said, "hey Roland, do you recognize the source of these passages?" After a moment, Roland exclaimed, "I WROTE THEM!"

Some years ago I myself was browsing at a bookstore and recognized something I had written being used without attribution; since I had recently written something else for the same publisher I had several contacts there, and believe me you they heard from me.

Permalink to Comment

44. pasupathy on March 20, 2009 3:57 AM writes...

during my graduate days, we were working on different organic transformation using I2 as lewis acid catalyst. One particular reaction raped by researchers across the globe is Biginelli reaction. After going through the literature found in 2001 that B C RANU had published the same reaction without solvent and catalyst in organic process research and development. After which i stopped working on biginelli reaction using I2. But even today You can find,a new lewis acid mediated biginelli mreaction in every issue of tetrahedron letters, syn comm, synthesis or synlett without the cited refernce of B C Ranu.

Permalink to Comment

45. Malar on July 27, 2009 5:52 PM writes...

see here also;
Chem. commn: 2004, 2424-2425

JACS..ASAP, with the title: enzyme promotes the hydrogelation from a hydrophobic small molecule

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Molecular Printing of Drug Molecules. Say What?
Pfizer Walks Again By Night
Gitcher SF5 Groups Right Here
Changing A Broken Science System
One and Done
The Latest Protein-Protein Compounds
Professor Fukuyama's Solvent Peaks
Novartis Gets Out of RNAi