An Undergrad's Take on the Controversy in 'Organometallics'

If there was ever proof that there is more to the world of chemistry than just arrow pushing...

In case you haven't heard, last week ChemBark reported on a disturbing note in the SI portion of an ASAP article in the journal Organometallics.  The note, apparently from the principal investigator to the first author, states that they need an NMR in a certain location, and that she should "just make up an elemental analysis..."  Much has been said already on this potential fraud, and ChemBark is doing an excellent job at chronicling events as they unfold, so I won't go into the details.  However, I feel that this blog, created by the undergrad for the undergrad, allows for a fresh perspective on the situation.

If this note is legitimately calling for researchers to make up data, than it is morally, ethically, and professionally wrong. However, I would not be surprised if many researchers have been tempted by this easy route.  Lets face it, the supporting information hardly ever gets read.  This article provides the perfect example: the note made it through three peer reviews without mention and was on the site for almost a month before anyone pointed it out.  If this awkward, out-of-place note made it that far, surely there are people who've considered - and some who have - burying erroneous, falsified, but camouflaged data deep in the SI.  Especially when there's a deadline to reach.

This doesn't make what was done inexcusable, but it does highlight what is likely to be found a growing problem, a cancer, in the chemistry community.  We must hold ourselves to a higher standard if we want the scientific community to continue being a paragon of honesty, thoroughness, and truth.

-Woodward