As first posted by ChemBark, a recent paper in Organometallics by Professor Reto Dorta at the University of Zurich is catching the ire of the online chemical community today [, ] for a quick throaway note left in the supporting information in the paper entitled, “Synthesis, Structure, and Catalytic Studies of Palladium and Platinum Bis-Sulfoxide Complexes“. On page 12 of the supporting information a note is left for the first author Emma E. Drinkel*, presumably by Reto Dorta, saying, “Emma, please insert NMR data here! where are they? and for this compound, just make up an elemental analysis…”.
The full supporting information file is attached for your reference. Supporting information for: Synthesis, Structure and Catalytic Studies of Palladium and Platinum Bissulfoxide Complexes
Update 1: Letter from the Editor and Chief of Organometallics
Wednesday 07 August
Dear Friends of Organometallics,
Chemical Abstracts alerted us to the statement you mention,which was overlooked during the peer review process, on Monday 05 August. At that time, the manuscript was pulled from the print publication queue. The author has explained to us that the statement pertains to a compound that was ”downgraded” from something being isolated to a proposed intermediate. Hence, we have left the ASAP manuscript on the web for now. We are requiring that the author submit originals of the microanalysis data before putting the manuscript back in the print publication queue. Many readers have commented that the statement reflects poorly on the moral or ethical character of the author, but the broad “retribution” that some would seek is not our purview. As Editors, our “powers” are limited to appropriate precautionary measures involving future submissions by such authors to Organometallics, the details of which would be confidential (ACS Ethical Guidelines, http://pubs.acs.org/page/policy/ethics/index.html). Our decision to keep the supporting information on the web, at least for the time being, is one of transparency and honesty toward the chemical community. Other stakeholders can contemplate a fuller range of responses. Some unedited opinions from the community are available in the comments section of a blog posting: http://blog.chembark.com/2013/08/06/a-disturbing-note-in-a-recent-si-file/#comments
If you have any criticisms of the actions described above, please do not hesitate to share them with me. Thanks much for being a reader of Organometallics, and best wishes,
Update 2: Reto Dorta allegedly responds by email to Sufi.
Thank you for your e-mail.
Compound 14 in the SI is an intermediate and has not been fully characterized, hence does not have a number in the manuscript. Wording and numbering of the compounds in the supporting information are wrong (on different levels!). Characterized compound 14 and 15a-c of the article correspond to compounds 154, 165a, 165b and 165c of the supporting info.
Anything else is being dealt with by the editors of the journal as we speak.
Update 3: Carmen Drahl and Stephen K. Ritter report in C&EN:
TL;DR Organometallics editor Gladysz told us that Dorta told him that the “just make up” statement was inappropriate. Also, the now-infamous SI was an earlier version uploaded to the journal servers at the point of submitting corrections. Reviewers saw another version.
Update 4: John Gladysz, Chief Editor of Organometallics, leaves a very detailed response on Paul’s blog.
I have been meaning to contribute a post to this blog, where there has been so much good dialog involving the Reta Dorta manuscript on the ASAP site of Organometallics (om-2013-00067 or DOI: 10.1021/om4000067). There have been hits and misses, but I’d like to thank everyone for all input and commentary. Although I write this sentence with a wink to all my friends on my masthead page (http://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1219929142245/orgnd7-masthead.pdf), this has made me muse whether an Editor-in-Chief could dispense with a high-maintenance Editorial Advisory Board and simply throw the various thorny issues that arise out for adjudication on a quality blog like Chembark.
I’ll attempt to address some of the many good points raised in a series of posts. I can’t promise I can reply to any counterpoints (e mail traffic has been heavy and will likely remain so), but I’ll be sure to read them.
A lot of comments have been made about the breakdown of the peer review process in this particular instance, and if you read to the end of this post you will get some specifics, within the confidentiality bounds that I am obliged to maintain as an Editor. However, you are going to have to bear through a general analysis of the many things that can go wrong with SI first.
The first vulnerability is in the initial submission. I don’t want to put down coauthor written manuscripts, but there are some corresponding authors who have clearly never laid an eye on their SI. Without this check, and I’m talking about a word-by-word read with attention given to every reagent quantity, spectroscopic data point, significant digit cutoff, etc., major errors are much more likely to slip through. My research group uses a proofing checklist, with every author fully participating, crystallographers excepted (except for their sections).
The second vulnerability is with the referees. I want to comment that I consider the pool of reviewers used by Organometallics as extremely conscientious. But obviously there will be cases, with any journal, where the SI is neglected.
A relevant digression involves JACS manuscripts. A reviewer may decide that the manuscript does not meet certain breadth/urgency criteria, and therefore not critique the SI. When such manuscripts are resubmitted to Organometallics (often with copies of the JACS reports), we do not render an Editorial decision until we are confident that the entire manuscript has been thoroughly peer reviewed.
The third vulnerability is with the Editors. I do not expect my Editors to carry out a word-by-word examination of the SI. However, we do follow an internal check list that I could in principle share, but all of the points therein can be found in our “Author Guidelines” (http://pubs.acs.org/paragonplus/submission/orgnd7/orgnd7_authguide.pdf)
An attendant vulnerability, pointed out by several on this string, involves the submission of the revised manuscript and accompanying SI. Suppose a reviewer or Editor requests that a melting point be added. At this stage, the Editor is unlikely to check anything other than the relevant paragraph. If an author has introduced other errors by some means (many comment about fixing minor typos), these will be overlooked.
In summary, it is necessary to look at error introduction from a number of perspectives, and it may be difficult for “younger” authors with less publishing experience to view things from the inside. I’ll eagerly “steal” any substantive additions that anyone offers if I ever have to present this analysis again, or incorporate it into a future Editor’s Page of Organometallics.
There are other things that can be done to reduce errors. When I did my major rewrite of the “Author Guidelines” that I inherited from my predecessor, I stole an idea from Dale Poulter at J. Org. Chem. and more or less required that all experimental data be reported in the main text of full papers. This excerpt is from section 4.3.8:
“For Articles and Notes, the bulk of the experimental section should be presented in the main text. Supporting Information should only be used to describe the syntheses and characterization of new compounds of subordinate interest: for example, the preparation of an isotopically labeled species by an otherwise known procedure or a salt with an alternative counteranion. Characterization data for known organic compounds prepared using a new catalyst would also be appropriate for Supporting Information.”
When om-2013-00067 was submitted, the experimental section (including all compound syntheses) was in the main text and the referees did exemplary jobs. One commented among other remarks “There is a fair amount of work in this paper, however 51 pages is definitely too much so downsizing the article would be appreciated especially as the relevance of the work is lost in the size of the article”. Neither the reviewer nor the processing Editor in his response recommended moving any content to SI. However, the author, in a not illogical attempt at accommodation, replied to reviewer 2 as follows: “We have shortened the article by taking away …. We have also incorporated all experimental data into the supporting information.” Exceptions are sometimes allowed to our policies, and in the processing Editor’s judgment it was more appropriate to honor the reviewer recommendation than adhere the protocol in section 4.3.8 of the Author Guidelines. Most Editors, including myself, would assume that a straight up cut/paste transfer between two documents could be competently carried out. However, this was not checked and nothing was returned to the referees, so the rest is history.
As noted above, additional posts may follow if time allows.
May your chemistry be highly successful, and may you execute it thoroughly and write it up in such a way that it can forever stand the test of time.
(on whose desk “the buck stops” for everything, good and bad, at Organometallics)
(for non-native speakers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_passing)
Update 5: John Gladysz goes into extraordinary detail on what to do when a product is solvated . Provides a handout: Solvates: Avoiding Common Errors
There has been due attention given to the microanalytical data in the Dorta manuscript and Drinkel thesis in this string.
Personally, the first thing first caught my attention was that both documents report identical reactant quantities, identical reaction conditions and workups, and identical product quantities and yields for the four compounds highlighted in the ChemBark post. However, the products are represented as solvated in the thesis, and unsolvated in the manuscript.
This of course cannot be, and is issue I want to focus on in this comment.
First, I’m a stickler for reporting both mass (typically g or mg) and molar (mol or mmol) quantities of all products (just as one does for reactants), not just the yields or yields and masses. I recognize that yields/masses only is a common format today, but this was not case some decades ago. Having the molar quantities greatly helps in checking the yield data, something I always do as a reviewer when solvates are claimed.
It is often the case that yields are incorrectly reported for solvates, and I made this mistake myself once (“Regiospecific and Stereospecific Reactions of Ph3C+ PF6– with Rhenium Alkyls (η-C5H5)Re(NO)(PPh3)(R); α vs ß Hydride Abstraction”, Kiel, W. A.; Lin, G.-Y.; Bodner, G. S.; Gladysz, J. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1983, 105, 4958-4972. DOI: 10.1021/ja00353a020). Hence, ever since the mid-80s I have had a group handout on this topic with the example from the paper. The present version is on my research group website and pasted below:
I’ve never sent this out for external review, but this post is a step in that direction. Subject to input, it may eventually become an appendix in the author guidelines of Organometallics.
One point is that a solvated compound has a greater FORMULA weight than an unsolvated compound. This is the quantity that must be used in the yield calculation. The yield associated with a solvated product will always (for a given mass) be lower than that associated with an unsolvated product.
Another point is that the presence of solvate molecules must be independently verified, with NMR being the obvious choice, but there are other options. I’ll refer readers to the handout for this. I’ll also comment that hydrates are the most difficult types of solvates to treat quantitatively, sometimes there is no perfect slam-dunk solution for them.
Thus, with respect to the Dorta manuscript and Drinkel thesis, we will be focusing (apart from many other questions) on whether the reported procedures give solvated or unsolvated products (it cannot be both), and then whether the yields given are correct (we have done the calculations both ways, and also looked at the NMR spectra per the group handout).
Update 6 (8/16): Emma’s mother speaks up at Synthetic Remarks: In defense of Emma
Dear Dr Kieseritzky
I hope you don’t mind me contacting you, but I would just like to thank you for your comment on ChemBark. My name is Mary-Anne Drinkel, and I am mother of Emma. We are very proud of our daughter she has worked hard and conscientiously to earn her first class degree at Durham, her PhD at Zurich, and presently her Post doctorate work in Brazil- we know that fabricating data would be alien to her. I cannot believe that her good reputation, built up over these years can be destroyed in a week. I know nothing of the academic community, but the hostile and aggressive comments left on the blog sites are unbelievable. I don’t know if Reto Dorta was careless or has done a very bad thing, but I do know that Emma is the innocent party in this affair. How many PhD thesis could withstand the hostile scrutiny that Emma’s has been subjected to, with these bloggers determined to find evidence of wrongdoing – boasting about who broke the news first.
Emma’s husband has a new industry position in Switzerland, and they will be moving back to Europe very soon; this means Emma will be applying for jobs – she fears this affair will affect her chances, as she would be honest with prospective employers about her situation. They had decided to leave the academic world long before this episode because the competitiveness and political environment of university life was not for them. Emma is devastated that her good name at Durham and Zurich University will be forever tarnished by this affair.
My husband and I have felt so sad and so helpless as these events have developed – when I saw your comment that was sympathetic to Emma’s plight, it was the first bit of humanity I had witnessed in the whole affair, and I am grateful to you for that. Emma will get through this, she is resilient and has the support of her husband, family and friends – but we feel so angry that Emma has been subjected to this through no fault of her own.
Once again thank- you,