Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Boo Radley · 08-07-2013, 02:29 PM

I was not sure where to put this so I will leave it here.

This is from a published article in the July 2013 issue of ACS Organometalics.
There is nothing really exciting about the article. However, the following caption in the supporting information is certainly raising concern.

"Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis..."

This is presumably from the PI. (1) Is this just a misunderstanding of the language used i.e. was the student asked to make up a sample for testing or (2) is the trainee being asked to falsify data.

Regardless of the type of data, that they would ask this and that it would get past the peer-review process is terribly wrong on many levels.

The link to the paper (the supporting information is freely available) and a blog talking about the article are below.

Original paper: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/om4000067
See Supporting Information page. 12

Follow the news on ChemBark blog (full disclosure: I have no connection to this site): http://blog.chembark.com/2013/08/06/...ecent-si-file/

I look forward to seeing the response from the PI and Journal.

08-07-2013, 02:29 PM	#1857
Boo Radley Scoring Winger Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: San Diego, CA Exp:	I was not sure where to put this so I will leave it here. This is from a published article in the July 2013 issue of ACS Organometalics. There is nothing really exciting about the article. However, the following caption in the supporting information is certainly raising concern. "Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis..." This is presumably from the PI. (1) Is this just a misunderstanding of the language used i.e. was the student asked to make up a sample for testing or (2) is the trainee being asked to falsify data. Regardless of the type of data, that they would ask this and that it would get past the peer-review process is terribly wrong on many levels. The link to the paper (the supporting information is freely available) and a blog talking about the article are below. Original paper: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/om4000067 See Supporting Information page. 12 Follow the news on ChemBark blog (full disclosure: I have no connection to this site): http://blog.chembark.com/2013/08/06/...ecent-si-file/ I look forward to seeing the response from the PI and Journal. __________________ "And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should." Max Ehrmann Last edited by Boo Radley; 08-07-2013 at 02:41 PM.