From the story, it seems to be a bit more complicated than that, using not only a deposited public-domain PDB, but also other data transferred confidentially (undeposited pdb and oral and written reports). This does seem unethical to me. I have to admit we only have one side of the story though.
Mark J van Raaij Dpto de Estructura de Macromoleculas Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia - CSIC calle Darwin 3 E-28049 Madrid, Spain tel. (+34) 91 585 4616 > On 21 Aug 2019, at 11:22, Anastassis Perrakis <[email protected]> wrote: > > If the structure has been deposited in the PDB and thus is public ally > available, B (or F, G, Φ, Ξ, Δ, Α or whoever else) has every right to use it > in a publication. > > “A” should follow the advice of Frank and do a happy dance for the usefulness > of the work, or if not feeling like dancing she/he could follow my advice > that will be offered in Greek: «ξυδάκι». > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 21 Aug 2019, at 11:13, Flemming Goery <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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 >> <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 > <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
