Ketik

Monday, April 16, 2012

Etika menjadi Scientist

Amboi, terbanyak plak entry hari ni....senang sgt ler kononnya..okay, since I do my PhD here I've learn something very powerful in scientific world. Yang boleh memusnahkan kreadibiliti dan kerjaya kita sepenuhnya. Ia berkaitan teori yang kita bangun, claims results kita yang tak appropriates, termasuk plagiarism etc..overall ia berkenaan publication kita. Sebagai scientist kita tak blh syok sendiri

Contoh saya terjumpa protest terhadap teori sorang scientist ni, kebetulan saya pun ada gak refer paper dia..hmmm sila lah pergi ke link


Contoh surat bantahan:

“Save the Cohesion-Tension Theory!”

Letter to the Editor-in-chief of the New Phytologist Journal

Dear Editor,

In the June 2004 issue of the New Phytologist, a paper was published by Ulrich Zimmermann and co-worker in the prestigious Tansley Review series under the title “Water ascent in tall trees: does evolution of land plants rely on a highly metastable state?”. In the paper, Ulrich Zimmermann develops at length his own views on the mechanisms of long distance water transport in plants, and claims that the “arguments of the proponents of the Cohesion Theory are completely misleading”. This paper is an insult to the outstanding work of hundred of prestigious plant physiologists since the pioneering studies of Dixon, Joly,Askenasy etc. more than a century ago. The ideas developed by Ulrich Zimmermann are inconsistent, suffer from major flaws, and completely misleading. These flaws have clearly being pointed out in clever recent papers and it would be a waste of time to develop further them here. There is a vast consensus about the Cohesion-Tension Theory among plant physiologist today and Zimmermann’ views are shared only by very few persons worldwide. I admit that publication of controversial ideas are sometime highly challenging, stimulating, and hence contribute positively to the normal progress of Science. This is definitively not the case for this article. First, Ulrich Zimmerman has already published his controversial ideas in many journals so far and plant physiologists in the field are largely aware of them. Second, many of us have wasted their time in demonstrating by straightforward experiments that Zimmermann theory was flawed and inconsistent. It was a waste of time because this contributed marginally to the overall progress of Science and only confirmed what was cleverly stated decades ago.

It must be pointed that this review is a real menace for future scientists. Tansley reviews are usually outstanding and, hence, highly praised by students and young scientists. The fact that that are now freely accessible online will further contribute to their success. Therefore it is critical to inform as soon as possible the readers of the New Phytologist that:

1- The cohesion-tension theory is the only valid and consistent theory for long distance water transport in plant.

2- There is an extremely large consensus about the CT-theory among the current scientific community.

3- The ideas developed by U Zimmermann are highly controversial and shared only by himself and very few persons on earth.

4- The editorial board of New Phytologist does not endorse the views presented in this review.

Tansley Review being commissioned by the editors of the New Phytologist, I judge that it the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief of this journal to inform himself the readers of my protest. If the Editor-in-Chief does not fulfil my above requirements, I declare that I will:

1- Never cite Zimmermann’s Tansley Review in any of my forthcoming article.

2- Never submit a paper related to long distance water transport to New Phytologist in the future.

3- Never review a paper related to long distance water transport for New Phytologist in the future.

Sincerely Yours

Hervé Cochard

UMR-PIAF

Proponent of the Cohesion-Tension Theory.


Maklumlah saya baru berkira2 nak jadi scientist yang sebenar...hmmm, so baru nak amik pot menda2 nih :p


Dan ini pula komen ke pihak journal yang sok bagus huhu


Dear Prof Woodward:

It seem to me that you have gotten yourself and New Phytologist into a

lot of hot water! I have been ready the rather large number of protest

letters written to you. I cannot understand how New Phytologist could

publish a review paper without proper peer review. You clearly dropped the

ball in this case. As I recall when I published a Tansley Review some years

ago, it was very adequately reviewed by my peers. Given that everyone in

the field has sent a letter of protest to you I can only conclude that you

went out of your way to find totally unqualified reviewers.

You may recall that New Phytologist had the misfortune of publishing a

paper by Zimmermann's group that was conceptually flawed and that I had to

publish a reply: Tyree, M.T. Capillarity and sap ascent in a resurrection

plant: does theory fit the facts? New Phytologist 150: 9-11 (2001). You

appear not to have learned from this mistake and have published yet another

paper by Zimmermann that is also conceptually flawed. There is nothing new

in the Tansley Review that has not already been published and responded to

in detail by us all.

May I suggest that it is time for New Phytologist to review their

editorial and peer review policies?

Thanks,

Mel Tyree

Prof. Melvin T. Tyree

USDA Forest Service

2 comments:

shuhada said...

Dr Yeang pun pernah hantar paper ke New Phytologist nih..paper dia pun ada org komen siap...

Maya said...

hmm..tak pernah dgr?