E-Letter responses to:

editorial: Donald Kennedy Responding to Fraud Science 2006; 314: 1353 [Summary] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Response to Committee Report

Denis English   (27 February 2007)

Response to Committee Report 27 February 2007
Denis English, Editor in Chief, Stem Cells and Developmen Professor of Neurosurgery, University of South Florida Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Response to Committee Report	I read with amusement Donald Kennedy's response to the committee report about how "top tier" journal should deal with fraud in submitted papers. I was particularly amused at Kennedy's summation of the committee's report, and his grasp of the committee's reflection that all in all, fraud cannot be avoided, but you all are doing a real good job at minimizing the problem. According to the committee, "To the extent possible, Science should act in concert with Nature and perhaps a few other high-profile journals to establish common standards." It is really unclear how the comittee reached such an absurb cnclusion, but it is very clear why you endorse it. The problem is that you don't realize what the problem is. By acting "in concert with Nature and perhaps a few other high-profile journals...," you have created the problem. A paper in Science or Nature (and "perhaps a few other high-profile journals") is now essential for advance, basically because Nature and Science have a monopoly on credibility. So work with Nature and ensure that your stranglehold on truth in reporting is codified and set in stone. This will certainly resolve the problem your journals created. Denis English, Ph.D. Tampa, Florida