Reactions

Ethics of scientific publication

The editors of the American Chemical Society journals have established "Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research," which sets forth a code of ethical behavior for authors, editors, and reviewers of papers submitted for publication to the society's journals and which can be found online at https://paragon.acs.org/paragon/ShowDocServlet?
contentId=paragon/menu_content/newtothissite/eg_ethic2000.pdf.

Section B of these guidelines lists the ethical obligations of authors. While most authors generally understand and subscribe to these points, an increasing number of authors apparently do not understand the meaning of terms such as "fragmentation" or "incremental publication" of research reports, "duplicate publication," and "plagiarism." These authors persist in submitting papers that range from trivial extensions of their own prior published work (incremental publication) to direct duplication of parts or all of prior published papers (self-plagiarism).

At one end of the spectrum, incremental publication or fragmentation of research reports may be technically permissible, depending on the journal and the quality and importance of the new findings. However, when prior relevant papers are not referenced by the authors and there is an apparent conscious effort on the part of the authors to conceal the existence of such material from editors and reviewers, this arguably falls within the purview of unethical behavior. Submitting authors must understand the need to respect the time of both reviewers and editorial offices, as well as the readership of journals. When submitting any new manuscript for publication, these issues must be balanced by the significance of new findings.

In Chemistry of Materials, authors/reviewers are asked to state/evaluate the originality and significance of the reported new findings in the context of prior published work in the area and to certify that the new findings represent a "significant advance" relative to these earlier reports. Papers that represent a trivial extension of previously published work or that do not advance the field in a significant way are referred elsewhere for publication.

The extreme situation of self-plagiarism, where all or part of a previously published or simultaneously submitted (duplicate submission) report is presented in the form of a new paper for publication, is considered by most journals and authors to be unethical (see items B.7 and B.8 of the ACS ethical guidelines), regardless of whether or not the prior papers are included in the list of references. Moreover, such action may also be considered a violation of the copyright of the previous journal and potentially subject to severe penalties under U.S. and most foreign copyright laws.

Despite the clear and detailed instructions on the ACS Paragon website relating to the ethical principles that guide scientific research and publication, we, along with many of our peer ACS journals, have encountered a substantial and unfortunately growing number of cases of duplicate submission and self-plagiarism in the past few years. For Chemistry of Materials, just the past few weeks have seen several such instances that have resulted in serious consequences for the authors and coauthors of the papers involved.

These issues ranged from the existence of prior unreferenced, essentially duplicate, publications in other journals that were discovered by readers of Chemistry of Materials after the paper had already been published (in one case only in ASAP form on the Web), to our being notified by referees that they had reviewed the identical or a very similar manuscript for another journal. All such incidents of unethical practices are taken seriously and are carefully investigated. Our actions can include and have included suspension of the offending authors from publishing in our journal for a one- to three-year period and withdrawal of the subject paper from the Web version of the journal (even, in one case, after it had already appeared in print form). Moreover, the reviewers of the Chemistry of Materials papers as well as the editors of the previous journals may be notified of our actions with an accompanying relevant explanation.

We believe that any attempt to publish research results in violation of ethical guidelines, whether intentional or simply uninformed, shows callous disregard and disrespect for the time and effort expended by our volunteer referees, our journal editorial offices, the publications staff, and more important, the research community as a whole.

We hope that our actions, and this letter, will discourage unethical behavior on the part of authors who might be considering resubmitting to our journal, or other journals, work that has already been published or submitted elsewhere. This type of behavior represents a violation of the informal contract between the authors, reviewers, and editors of scientific publications and demeans the entire peer review process. As editors and as readers of scientific papers, we owe a debt of gratitude to our reviewers, who take on this difficult and time-consuming peer review process as part of their professional responsibility as authors and users of the scientific literature. Let us at least show respect for their time.

Finally, we would like to encourage the leaders of academic research groups to inform their students and research associates about the ethical responsibilities of authors of scientific publications and to ensure that, when they are given the responsibility for submitting a paper, they are fully aware of the potential consequences, to themselves and to their coauthors, of violations of these ethical guidelines.

Leonard V. Interrante, editor
Elsa Reichmanis, associate editor
Chemistry of Materials

Cleaning up at NIH

I am a practicing psychiatrist and a national affiliate of ACS. Even before the public hoopla about ethics at the National Institutes of Health, I had been dismayed by drug promotion schemes featuring NIH leaders. Thus, David Hanson's Insights that NIH was overreacting to charges of conflict of interest doesn't ring true (C&EN, April 18, page 36).

This sentiment is echoed in the perspective "Standards of Ethics at the National Institutes of Health" in the New England Journal of Medicine (2005, 352, 1290), where NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni is quoted as saying that some of these activities "really were purely and simply what you would call product-endorsement activities, speaking for a company on behalf of a product to entice physicians to prescribe that product at greater levels."

As a physician surrounded by such enticements, I was bothered to have NIH's name that close to the bait. Even if the new policy at NIH was an overreaction, the provocation was an assault on clean ethics.

Michael Stitelman
Branford, Conn.

A picture is worth ...

I enjoyed reading the C&EN article on patent claims and the Phillips case dealing with the issue of word definitions (C&EN, March 7, page 34). As a practicing patent attorney for quite a few years, I can appreciate the importance of that case in potentially providing new standards for claim interpretation.

I would like to also point out that the case has particular significance for chemical and materials inventions. The Phillips case dealt with a mechanical invention--baffles for wall panels. If nothing else, one can usually see the mechanical invention, and that can help in figuring out how its features are defined.

In contrast, there is often nothing to "see" in a chemical or metallurgical patent, so the words are all one has, and their definitions are critical. I've spent many hours trying to figure out if all noble metals are precious metals, if a hydrocarbon can still contain a halogen or two, if yttrium is considered a lanthanide, how pure is "pure," and so on.

I work with a lot of highly skilled scientists, but if I asked five of them for the definition of a chemical term, I might get five different answers. They might be similar answers, each with support in the art, but minor differences can make big court cases. Even after I use stacks of regular dictionaries and technical dictionaries in my practice, the precise definition of a chemical term can be elusive. (The term "about" in a chemical or drug claim can be especially vexing for scientists, attorneys, and the courts. See the recent federal circuit case of Merck v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, where defining the term "about 70 mg of alendronate monosodium trihydrate" was critical.)

In any of these cases, the invention might sit in a beaker, but all a court will ever see are the words describing what's in that beaker. As your own article pointed out, communication still rules the day.

Francis T. Coppa
Albany, N.Y.

Methyl bromide:
Still of value?

I have additional information concerning the following quote from your article "Methyl Bromide Phaseout Stymied" (C&EN, Jan. 17, page 30): "Although there are many substitutes for methyl bromide, no single chemical is as broadly effective. Often two or three substitutes need to be used in place of one treatment with methyl bromide." This mantra has been repeated ad nauseum by the coalition of groups wishing to save methyl bromide.

Our research team has published data (Plant Disease 1996, 80, 731) showing that methyl iodide is a single chemical that is as effective or in many cases more effective on a mole-for-mole basis than methyl bromide as a single chemical. In addition, methyl bromide is rarely used as a single chemical in preplant fumigation. It is generally combined with chloropicrin in various ratios depending on the perceived pest problem.

Methyl iodide is currently under review by the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California for registration as a soil fumigant. Since this process is taking so long, it makes me wonder if the evaluation is being stymied by the political interests mentioned in the article. Methyl iodide was recently registered in Japan for fumigation of wood products.

A major advantage of methyl iodide is that it is not ozone-depleting.

James J. Sims
Riverside, Calif.

I have been a member of ACS for more than 30 years, and during this time I have relied on C&EN for detailed, accurate, and balanced reports on news of importance to our profession and industry. I was therefore disappointed to read "Methyl Bromide Phaseout Stymied."

Rather than claim that the phaseout of methyl bromide has been "stymied," it would be more accurate to state that the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer is working as intended. Production of methyl bromide in the U.S. has been reduced by 70%, and now, rather than taking further arbitrary reductions that would cause disruptions in several segments of U.S. agriculture, the parties to the protocol have agreed on critical-use exemptions to allow the continued use of methyl bromide until technically and economically feasible alternatives are available.

The U.S. exemption request was based on an extensive review (by U.S. Department of Agriculture and EPA scientists) of applications submitted by methyl bromide users; the ultimate request submitted to the parties of the Montreal protocol was for only about 60% of the amount applied for by U.S. users.

At least two national organizations could have helped to ensure balance and accuracy in the development of this article. The Crop Protection Coalition represents methyl bromide users, and the Methyl Bromide Industry Panel (a Chemstar panel of the American Chemistry Council) represents methyl bromide registrants. I was pleased, at least, to see the comment from Claudia McMurray of the State Department, who has provided very capable leadership to the U.S. delegation at meetings of the parties to the Montreal protocol in 2003 and 2004.

In summary, the U.S. is in full compliance with both the text and spirit of the Montreal protocol. USDA, university researchers, and methyl bromide users have invested millions in seeking affordable alternatives that work. Statements from these groups would have illustrated how the U.S. is doing its part in supporting the goals of the protocol. Omitting this information is a disservice to the readers of C&EN who, like me, rely on this publication to uphold its high standards for balance and accuracy.

David L. McAllister
Chair, Methyl Bromide Industry Panel, American Chemistry Council
West Lafayette, Ind.

The article describing the status of the phaseout of methyl bromide, a critically needed chemical used to protect both U.S. and worldwide agricultural interests, gave a good generalized overview of where the U.S. stands on this issue. However, the article omitted an important consideration that should advance the interests of all of the stakeholders: It does not mention the requirement of emissions reduction (and supporting technologies) that is required by the Montreal protocol.

Part of the ruling from Paragraph 1 of Decision IX/6 at the ninth meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol (1997) states: "(b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical issues should be permitted only if: (i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimize the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide."

This same language has been incorporated into EPA's final rule on methyl bromide critical-use exemptions, 40 CFR Part 82 (Fed. Reg. Dec. 23, 2004, page 76981).

Our company, Value Recovery, recently developed new technology to remove (chemically destroy) methyl bromide from ventilation airstreams typical of the fumigation industry. The commercial-scale effectiveness and economic benefit of the technology has been demonstrated and announced at the Port of Wilmington, in Delaware, for the fumigation of imported produce. The technology takes advantage of a simple nucleophilic substitution reaction and converts methyl bromide cheaply into a Bunte salt (methyl ammonium thiosulfate) for easy disposal.

We believe that the emissions-reduction approach enables a continued safe use of methyl bromide for many applications while simultaneously offering substantial protection of the ozone layer. Ours is not the only technology that could be applied to emission reduction. It has been extensively documented that the alternatives to methyl bromide result in much higher costs and lower yields. In time, we hope that the world will focus on technological solutions that are economic and that protect the ozone layer without disrupting the agricultural industry.

Peter J. Joyce and Roman Bielski
Bridgeport, N.J.