If A had deposited it to the PDB immediately, he'd have had been able to claim the kudos and help lots of scientists besides B.
How is it that we structural biologists still are so precious about our coordinates? Or more to the point, that the supervisors still don't teach their students that aggressive Open Access in all domains is where everything is going, and besides is ethically the correct way to think of what we do with the money society provides us with? On 21/08/2019 10:13, Flemming Goery wrote: Dear all: A has sought a job in the lab of B. B invited A for a interview with a PPT oral presentation, as requested B has sent the PPT on the structural biology research of XXX to B by e-mail, and presented in front of A and his postdoctoral researcher. After interview, B requested all research documents (including detailed reports) on XXX to be sent by A to B by e-mail, A sent, including 2 sets of pdb for the same structure, one set with solvent, one without. A told B all intellectual property of the Documents and the research belonged to A, based on the regulation of A's institute. B sought a referee from A's institute, to someone A did not agree. It seems the referee told B one set of PDB has been deposited (the one without solvent) Then B did not give the offer to A. A joined Institute D, without independent funding for the writing (in fact, no salary to support this writing, and no fee for publication of this work). Several years later, A found B's paper, i.e., the concerned paper published in Journal C. In the paper, B has used the information from deposited PDB for 9 times (already a significant paprt of the paper, not to say the message from the other Documents sent to B by A). In the paper, it write something like, 'based on our work on the structure of (folowed by 4 letter pdb code)', which implied the structure was solved by the authors of the paper, rather than by A. A contacted Journal C, Journal C contacted B, B claimed the deposited PDB was a public domain knowldge. Journal C took the action to add the reference to the deposited pdb in the paper. As mentioned, the paper has mentioned and used the message from the deposited pdb 9 times, and in the paper the reference mark was not added to the first occurence of the mentioning of the deposited pdb, but added (only once for the 9 occurences of depositation code) to a paragraph where it can be concluded that the authors have used the undeposited pdb with the solvent. In another words, although reference to the deposited pdb was added by a correction, from where the reference mark was added, it cannot show they have refered to the cited pdb, not to say the undeposited pdb with solvent which they used based on the paragraph information. A's concern was that: A cannot exclude the possibility that the research in the paper other the part related to PDB, were fabricated, thus A request paper retraction as the major clain. If cannot retratcted, A request to be the correspondence author (sometimes requets co-first author, sometimes request both co-first author and co-correspondence author), as without A's work (the PPT presentation, 2 sets of pdb, all documents), the work in the concerned paper cannot be done. A regard as having contributed to the initiation of the paper, thus A prefer to be add as a co-correspondence author if appropriate. First, can the paper deserve a retraction, and second, can B deserve a co-author? Flemming ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
