If there are stylistic problems (e.g. insinuation, ad hominems, inproper language), this can be a basis for not publishing the answer. However,  if the problems are scientific ones, I think that this should not hinder the publication of the answer -after all, response & comments are part of a larger scientific debate. There are exceptions of course, in extreme situations like when the author wants to use the opportunity to propagate "scientific racism", intelligent design, vaccine-cause-autism claims and a few other, topics considered consensually unacceptable in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. 

There are interesting articles published recently in CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 107, NO. 11, 10 DECEMBER 2014, pp.1777-1778 on : Truthfulness: the ultimate ethics in scientific writing and also on : Plagiarism – why blame it on the internet?

I do agree with the opinion expressed in this article. This is true that Instead of engaging readers and authors to battle it out with claims and counter claims, journals should form an ethics committee of experts who can serve as judge and jury to review plagiarism cases more rationally and unbiased and then take disciplinary actions,

including retracting papers to minimize future invasion and infestation of plagiarism

in science.

i am attaching herewith copies of such publications.

Article Comments on Uranium Concentration in Groundwater in Hisar City, India

Article Authors response to Dr. Rathore’s comments on Singh B, Garg ...

Article Letter to the Editor: Comments related to the publication ti...

Dear D.P.S Rathore,

this can not happen in reputable scientific publications with DOE or ISBN. This publications are reviewed, before it is published. Of course, the reviewers are not complete, or not without interests. At several from each other independent reviewers, however, the probability of error is almost nil.

Thats my expierence

All the best

Michael Lersow

Dear @Michael Lersow,

Thanks for sharing your views.

I am attaching a link: The poisoned waters of Punjab        http://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/poisoned-waters-punjab

I am attaching a copy of paper recently published:   Bajwa, B. S., et al., Uranium and other heavy toxic elements distribution in the drinking water

samples of SW-Punjab, India, Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.jrras.2015.01.002

I have read this paper (Bajwa,et al., 2015) and all the cited references in this manuscript. I would like to share some of my observations on this manuscript which may be useful for future research and a meaningful publication.

In Section 3 of the manuscript, Experimental techniques, sub-section3.1, it is stated that Laser

fluorimeter manufactured by Quantalase Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Indore, India was used for analyses of water samples for uranium concentrations in this work. The Quantalase Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Indore, India has

manufactured a number of fluorimetry instrument models differing in specifications as well as in performance qualifications. It is mandatory

in all publications to clearly mention the instrumental details to ensure reliability of measurement results. The model number of the

instrument is missing.

In sub section, 3.1.1. Analytic procedure, as stated, quote “Analytic procedure begins with taking 10 ml aliquot of filtered water sample in duplicate for wet digestion (HClO4 and HNO3) on hot plates to destroy

organic material in the sample” unquote. Moreover, authors further stated that quote “ The residue was then dissolved in Milliporeelix-3 water followed by mixing with fluorescence reagent (5% sodium pyrophosphate) to make the total volume 25 ml and to adjust pH to 7.2 levels.The sample solution was then taken into a cuvette for the measurement of U

concentration” unquote. On the other hand, authors further stated that quote “The instrument was calibrated in the range of 1-100 µgl-1 using a

stock solution of standard that was prepared by dissolving 1.78 g of uranyl acetate dihydrate (CH3COO)2UO2.2H2O) in 1 l of Millipore elix-3

water containing 1 ml of HNO3 (70% pure). 5% phosphoric acid in ultra pure water was used as fluorescence reagent. To obtain blank counts, a

blank sample containing same amount of fluorescing reagent was measured for U concentration” unquote. The same fluorescence enhancing reagent should be used for calibration of the instrument and subsequent measurement of uranium in samples. The procedure adopted for uranium determination is wrong. Further statement and claim by the authors quote “Quality assurance was made by analysis of IAEA standard reference

materials, spike recovery, replicate analysis, and cross method checking” appears highly misleading.

Laser-induced fluorescence is very sensitive, selective and fast method for ultratrace uranium determination especially needed for hydrogeochemical reconnaissance surveys. Any additional chemical preparation of sample will introduce contamination and high blank value. A choice of an appropriate fluorescence enhancing reagent for different types of sample matrices is essential (Rathore, et al.,2001). Moreover, there are

different procedures reported for different type of sample matrix followed by laser-induced fluorimetry (Rathore, 2008). Truly, the reliability of analytical

results depends on strict adherence to the various steps of the validated

method and not on fluorimetry technique or laboratory or a person.

Direct methods for the analysis of uranium in natural water samples

should be adopted.

For

water samples, the best fluorescence enhancing reagent is 5 % sodium

pyrophosphate solution in distilled water adjusted to pH-7.0–7.2 by drop-wise addition of orthophosphoric acid (as per the manual of the

instrument). Highly saline water samples require sample preparation, the high uranium content in

such samples needs to be validated by conventional fluorimetry technique and level of variation, if any, have been documented. Authors are advised

to go through the application manual of UA-3 uranium analyser

(Robbins,1978, Robbins and Kinrade,1980, Robbins, et al., 1985) also the

manual of the instrument and other publications( Rathore,2013, 2014).

The presence of fluoride may significantly affect the changes in uranium content (Rathore,2013, 2014).

In section, 3.2., Elemental analysis in water using atomic absorption spectrophotometry and sub-section 3.2.1. Analytic procedure, in the manuscript, as stated by authors, quote “100 ml aliquot of filtered water sample was taken in duplicate for wet digestion (HNO3) on hot plates to destroy organic material in the sample. 25 ml of the prepared

sample was injected in the nebulizer-spray chamber-burner system of the Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer. Air-acetylene compressed gas has been used as oxidant and fuel. Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer was standardized with standard element concentrations in prior” unquote and as claimed by authors in the manuscript regarding heavy metal concentration ( The heavy metal concentration variations observed in drinking water samples of the study region is reported in Table 4). The manufacturer and model number of the instrument is missing. Using the above procedure for preconcentration and keeping

in view of the characteristic concentration of these heavy metals (characteristic concentration [mgl-1/1% Abs]: for As, 0.68 at 193.7 nm; Pb,0.3 at 283.3 nm; Cu,0.035 at 324.8 nm ; Mn, 0.03 at 279.5 nm; Co,0.075 at 240.7 nm; Ni,0.07 at 232.0 nm; Fe,0.08 at 248.3 nm ; Zn, 0.012 at 213.9 nm and Cr, 0.05 at

357.9 nm) using flame Atomic Absorption pectrophotometer, their determination at 4µgl-1 concentration levels is practically impossible.

This claim by the authors is absolutely incorrect and highly misleading’’. I (strongly) disagree with their statement in the manuscript. Interpretation and conclusions based on such unreliable results will be highly misleading.

The use of instrumental methods for trace metal ion determinations frequently requires preconcentration procedures. Methods widely used for preconcentration are based on liquid–liquid

extraction, ion exchange and chelating resins. The chelating resins are capable of preconcentrating metal ions selectively from a large volume and may be

easily coupled with flame atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS) to

enhance its sensitivity(Kumar et al., 2000, 2001).

In the Acknowledgement section of the manuscript, quote “the authors are extremely grateful and sincerely acknowledge the guidance, help in sampling, encouragement and consistent involvement of Dr. R.M. Tripathi and Dr. S.K. Sahoo, BARC, Mumbai during this work” unquote.

I found something unusual in the acknowledgement. Authors have acknowledged their two co-authors by name (R.M. Tripathi and S.K. Sahoo).

{Title and authors of the paper: Uranium and other heavy toxic elements distribution in the drinking water samples of SW-Punjab, India B.S. Bajwa a,*, Sanjeev Kumar a, Surinder Singh a, S.K. Sahoo b,

R.M. Tripathi b, a Department of Physics, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab 143005, India b Health Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400085, India

Acknowledgement

The authors are extremely grateful and sincerely acknowledge the guidance, help in sampling, encouragement andconsistent involvement of Dr. R.M. Tripathi and Dr. S.K.Sahoo, BARC, Mumbai during this work. We are also thankful to the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences (BRNS), Department

of Atomic Energy (DAE), Government of India, for

providing financial assistance during this research work.}

Is it acceptable to acknowledge co-authors in the acknowledgement section of the paper? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/p... [accessed Sep 18, 2015].

Since this research work is financed by the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences, Department of Atomic Energy(DAE-BRNS), Mumbai, India, it is a misuse and wastage of fund due to greediness of the authors for publications, fame etc.Interpretation and conclusions based on such unreliable results for uranium and other heavy metal analysis will be highly misleading.

I request that the authors of the subject article kindly further document the reliability of their findings in view of the concerns expressed herein.

REFERENCES

B.S.

Bajwa , Sanjeev Kumar , Surinder Singh , S.K. Sahoo, .M. Tripathi

(2015), Uranium and other heavy toxic elements distribution in the drinking water samples of SW-Punjab, India, Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jrras.2015.01.002, in press.

D.

P. S. Rathore, P. K. Tarafder, M. Kayal and Manjeet Kumar (2001), Application of a differential technique in laser-induced fluorimetry : simple and a precise method for the direct determination of uranium in

mineralised rocks at percentage level, Anal. Chim. Acta 434, 201–208.

D. P. S. Rathore (2008) Advances in technologies for the measurement of uranium in diverse matrices , Talanta 77, 9–20.

J. C. Robbins(1978), Field techniques for the measurement of uranium in natural water, C. I. M. Bull., 71, 61–67 and the references therein.

J. C. Robbins and J. D. Kinrade (1980), United States Patent, patent no. 4,239,964.

J.C. Robbins, C. Castledine, W. Kostiak (1985), Analytical Procedures

for UA-3 Uranium Analysis—Applications Manual, Scintrex Limited,

Ontario, Canada.

D.P.S. Rathore (2013) Interpretation and evaluation of the variations in the uranium, major cations and anions content of hydrogeochemical samples

with reference to the time interval between sampling and analysis,

Exploration & Research for Atomic Minerals,23, 207-215.

D.P.S.

Rathore (2013) Letter to the Editor: Query related to the publication titled‘‘Application of fission track technique for estimation of uranium concentration in drinking waters of Punjab’’ by Prabhu et

al.294:443–446 (2012), doi:10.1007/s10967-011-1503-2 ,Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 298 , 717-719.

D.P.S. Rathore (2013) Letter to Editor : Query related to publication titled ‘‘A comparative analysis of uranium in potable waters using laser fluorimetry and ICPMS techniques’’ by Shenoy et al. 294:413–417(2012),

doi: 10.1007/s10967-012-1705-2, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 298, 721-723.

D.P.S. Rathore (2013) Reply to: Uranium concentration in ground water samples

belonging to some areas of Western Haryana, India using fission track registration technique, Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology,

5(3), March 2013. DOI: 10.5897/JPHE2013.0517

D.P.S. Rathore (2013) Letter to HERA’s Editor Concerning the Paper “Risk Assessment for Natural Uranium in Subsurface Water of Punjab State,

India? (Kumar et al. 2011a) Human Ecology and Risk Assessment, 19, 1147–1149.

D.P.S. Rathore (2013) Letter to Editor : Query related to publication titled “Geochemical modeling of uranium speciation in the subsurface aquatic

environment of Punjab State in India” by Ajay Kumar, Sabyasachi Rout,

Usha Narayanan, Manish K. Mishra, R. M.Tripathi, Jaspal Singh, Sanjeev

Kumar and H. S. Kushwaha, Published in Journal of Geology and Mining

Research Vol. 3(5), pp. 137-146, May 2011. Journal of Geology and Mining

Research, 5(5), 108-113.

D.P.S. Rathore (2014) Uranium Exploration, Current Science, 106,792.

D.P.S Rathore (2014) Comments on: Uranium Concentration in Groundwater in

Hisar City, India by Garg VK, Yadav A, Singh K, et al. Uranium concentration in groundwater in Hisar city, India. Int J Occup Environ Med 2014; 5:112-114. The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 5, 169-171.

D.P.S. Rathore (2014) Letter to the Editor: Comments related to the publication titled ‘‘uranium in ground water from Western Haryana, India’’ by Balvinder Singh, V. K. Garg, Poonam Yadav, Nawal Kishore,Vandana Pulhani, J Radioanal Nucl Chem, DOI 10.1007/s10967-014-3133-y, Published online: 13 April 2014, Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 302,745–746.

Manjeet Kumar, D.P.S. Rathore and Ajai K. Singh (2001),Quinalizarin Anchored on

Amberlite XAD-2 : A New Matrix for Solid -Phase Extraction of Metal

Ions for Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometric Determination”, Fresenius

J. Anal. Chem., 370, 377-383 .

Manjeet Kumar, D.P.S. Rathore and Ajai K. Singh (2001), Pyrogallol Immobilized Amberlite XAD-2 : A Newly Designed Collector for Enrichment of Metal

Ions Prior to their Determination by Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry”,Mikrochimica Acta, 137, 127-135 .

Manjeet Kumar, D.P.S. Rathore and Ajai K. Singh ( 2000 ),Metal Ion Enrichment on Amberlite XAD-2 Functionalized with Tiron: Analytical Applications.Analyst, Vol.,125, pp.1221-1226 .

Manjeet Kumar, D.P.S. Rathore and Ajai K. Singh ( 2000 ),Amberlite XAD-2 Functionlized with o-Aminophenol : Synthesis and Applications as

Extractant for Copper(II), Cobalt(II), Cadmium(II), Nickel(II), Zinc(II) and Lead(II), Talanta, 51, 1187-1196.

Why some journal Editors/Journals are encouraging scientific misconduct? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_some_journal_Editors_Journals_are_encouraging_scientific_misconduct/2 [accessed May 21, 2016].

Dear @ Bertin Kipre ,

I do perfectly agree in general but unfortunately such is not the case.

I am attaching a link: The poisoned waters of Punjab http://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/poisoned-waters-punjab

my comment on this publication. I tried my best through the help system and on line chat system to draw the kind attention of Editor-in-chief of Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences and elsevier publications but unfortunately no satisfactory scientific response. ( No response).

I do not remember that 10-15 years ago no Editor from any scientific journal was asking individuals to submit manuscript  in his journal, but now it is very common thing.

Now publishing of journals is too much commercialized and due to such reason the quantity of research publication is increasing, but quality of papers is questionable. I know some articles have been retracted by authors not by publisher.

In practice, the decision to publish an author's response is a matter for the editor, who will be concerned that they have been fair, and that they are not exposing the journal to lawsuits. I am currently involved in challenging the accuracy of a particular paper. Our comments have been accepted for publication (with many peer reviewers), but the publication will be delayed until the author submits a response. I do not know how long the editor is prepared to wait. This seems to be (from my perspective) a clear case where mistakes have been made in good faith, but the author sticks to his position, which is sad, since there were opportunities to back down gracefully. We all make mistakes.

If there is a universal and applicable to always something wrong definition, the explanation of the author would superfluous. but it is not so: there are many ways in which an author can strictly untruthful or may not be correct in a data or appreciation for the explanation l always the same place, except an obvious fraud.

It will be allowed.

It is desirable that the letters to the editor are published clarifying methodologies and analysis / evaluation of results, and when errors that may invalidate the results and conclusions are identified. Also to be published in the same journal, the response of the authors, because the retro-feeding is part of continuous learning.

In extreme cases the authors should apologize for mistakes or withdraw their work already published.

This by health and ethics in publications

Dear @Jose Luis Garcia Vigil,

No satisfactory scientific reply to my query>

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 9 June 2015 08:40

To: [email protected]

Subject: Chat session - Decision [150605-002009] [Reference: 150605-002009]

Incident No: 150605-002009

Mail forwarded from [email protected]:

From: Melissa De Chavez

To: [email protected]

CC: [email protected]; [email protected]

Files:

Note:

Dear Latha,

I am sending this e-mail to follow up my previous correspondence.

Please be informed that Dr Rathore has contacted us again with regards to the decision of the manuscript JRRAS-D-15-00045.

The decision letter states that:

“Dear RATHORE,

I regret to inform you that the reviewers of your manuscript have advised against publication, and I must therefore reject it.”

However, as I have checked our system, the above manuscript has not been sent out to reviewers.

Could you please look into this and kindly clarify the above statement?

I would be grateful if you could contact the author directly in this regard at [email protected].

Your assistance is very much appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Please copy me ([email protected]) so I may close this call from my end.

Kind regards,

Melissa De Chavez

Researcher Support

Thank you.

 Chat Transcript

05/06/2015 08.28 AM

Hi, my name is Melissa De Chavez. How may I help you?

Dr D P S RATHORE:

No contact or email  from the journal Editor or Journal Manager as on date.As on date , I have not received any scientific reply to my query.

Melissa De Chavez: Thanks for your enquiry. Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience that this matter has caused you.

Melissa De Chavez: In order for me to further assist you, please clarify your enquiry so I can be able to help you.

Dr D P S RATHORE: Dear Dr. Rathod,

Thank you for your e-mail. We have spoken with the editor regarding a decision on your manuscript. The editor has confirmed that the decision is final and there is nothing that we can do to change the decision. The comments are also sent to you by the editor.

I am hoping that based on the advised editor comments, you can re submit to us and then we can reevaluate your manuscript for publication in the journal.

Thank you for your understanding,

Poonam

Poonam Mascarenhas

Publishing Support Manager

Publishing Development & International Markets | STM Journals | Elsevier

Elsevier India, International Tech Park | Crest – 5th Floor | Taramani Road | Taramani | Chennai 600 113 | India

__________________________

Tel: +91 44 42994779 | Fax: +91 44 42994568

E-mail: [email protected]; url: http://www.elsevier.com/

Melissa De Chavez: How may I help you with that?

Dr D P S RATHORE: I have not yet received Editor comments.

Melissa De Chavez: Could you please provide the manuscript number of your paper so I can check further?

Dr D P S RATHORE: I have been contacted by the Journal Manager and he advised that he already contacted you and the editor regarding the issue on your manuscript JRRAS-D-15-00045.

Melissa De Chavez: It will take just a moment for me to check on that for you. I would appreciate your patience.

Dr D P S RATHORE: Dear Latha,

I am sending this email for your kind assistance.

Please be informed that we have been contacted by Dr Rathore several times regarding the decision on his manuscript JRRAS-D-15-00045.

His manuscript was rejected but there is no reviewers comments indicated on the decision letter. From checking EES, this manuscript was not sent out for review. However, it is indicated on the decision letter sent to author that "the reviewers of your manuscript have advised against publication".

As such, the author would like to have a scientific reply from the Editor.

I have contacted the Editor regarding this matter but I am unable to received any response from him after my subsequent follow up.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could look into this matter and advise on what should be the next appropriate action so I can advise the author on the same.

Hope to hear from you at your earliest convenience.

Kind regards,

Jomil Percil

Researcher Support

Melissa De Chavez: Thanks for patiently waiting. Please be informed that I will be contacting the Journal Manager again for further clarification. I am very sorry for the inconvenience. Rest assured that I will get back to you as soon as further update is available.

Melissa De Chavez: Are you still with me?

Dr D P S RATHORE: when will be the final decisiopn

Dr D P S RATHORE: Tell me the final decision

Melissa De Chavez: Please note that the final decision has already been given. The clarification that we need here is about the comments of the reviewers which was stated in the decision letter that you have received.

Dr D P S RATHORE: I am hoping that based on the advised editor comments, you can re submit to us and then we can reevaluate your manuscript for publication in the journal.

Thank you for your understanding,

Poonam

Melissa De Chavez: I regret to inform you that I am not in the position to provide you the final decision. I would suggest that you log in to your account and check your 'Submissions with a Decision' folder.

Dr D P S RATHORE: I have checked the folder , there are no reviewer comments

Dr D P S RATHORE: May I know, How Poonam has stated:  I am hoping that based on the advised editor comments, you can re submit to us and then we can reevaluate your manuscript for publication in the journal.

Thank you for your understanding,

Poonam

Melissa De Chavez: Yes. I understand. This is the reason why I will be contacting the Journal Manager for clarification.

Dr D P S RATHORE: You can check the EES system

Melissa De Chavez: I know that there are no reviewer and editor comments. This is the reason why I will be contacting the Journal Manager for clarification.

Dr D P S RATHORE: I do not know, why the Edior-in-Chief /journal Manager  of JRRAS are misleading

Dr D P S RATHORE: May I know, How Poonam has stated:  I am hoping that based on the advised editor comments, you can re submit to us and then we can reevaluate your manuscript for publication in the journal.

Thank you for your understanding,

Poonam

Melissa De Chavez: I really understand your concern. Please bear in mind that the reason why I will be contacting the Journal Manager is to clarify the statement provided to you.

Dr D P S RATHORE: you can check the EES system

Dr D P S RATHORE: and confirm

Melissa De Chavez: Please be informed that from checking our system I am unable to find any reviewers and their comments. This is the reason why I will be contacting the Journal Manager for clarification. Please note that the Journal Manager is in the best position to advise regarding this matter.

Dr D P S RATHORE: Exactly, Why editor has given misleading statement.

Melissa De Chavez: I know. That is why I will be contacting the Journal Manager to clarify this matter. Please understand that the Journal Manager is in the best position to advise you in this regard.

Dr D P S RATHORE: Ok.

Dr D P S RATHORE: Kindly confirm the status immediately

Dr D P S RATHORE: bye

Melissa De Chavez: It was a pleasure assisting you today. If you require any assistance, please contact us again. To close this chat session, please click the Close button in the top corner of this chat window. Have a nice day.

'Dr D P S RATHORE' disconnected ('Concluded by End-user').

Dr Rathore , your question is a kind of grinding through  statements over statements , and you will always get the conflicting responses. To publish authors response , is absolutely a  ED prerogative as per editorial policy of most of the  peer reviewed journal  . To publish  the authors response , it is wonderful for accepted manuscripts , but for those rejected by the reviewers and agreed by ED , in that case, authors will surely have strong difference of opinions with reviewers comments, so later could shape up unscientific ... i feel that could be the sole reason .. most of the EDs avoid publishing the authors responses..

Dear @ D.P.S. RATHORE,

I can understand you and also it is one of my special fields. But, I can not help! If all measurement results are incorrect and nevertheless it is published with incorrect conclusion you have two possibilities: first sue the publisher to the withdrawal of the publication and second you demand a reply in the same publication.

If the groundwater be used for drinking water after was treated in a water treatment plant, then also the owner can demand a prohibition from the author.

I know that water now is in India a great problem because of the great heat there. Perhaps one can desire only a little bit sense?

All the best for you

Michael Lersow

Dear @Anoop ji and Michael Lersow,

I am stating and reproducing  again based on EES :

His manuscript was rejected but there is no reviewers comments indicated on the decision letter. From checking EES, this manuscript was not sent out for review. However, it is indicated on the decision letter sent to author that "the reviewers of your manuscript have advised against publication".

Incorrect/highly misleading author's response should be published or better retracted? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Incorrect_highly_misleading_authors_response_should_be_published_or_better_retracted [accessed May 23, 2016].

Moreover,

I have gone through a recent publication by :

Bajwa, B. S., et al., Uranium and other heavy toxic elements distribution in the drinking water samples of SW-Punjab, India, Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jrras.2015.01.002, in press. and I found something unusual in the acknowledgement. Authors have acknowledged their two co-authors by name .

Is it acceptable to acknowledge co-authors in the acknowledgement section of the paper?

In addition to, there are serious issues with the subject matter and I have raised the issue and seriously following up the matter.. As on date, I have not received any scientific reply to my queries  through Elsevier Chat support system after so many chat sessions.

Title and authors  of the paper:

Uranium and other heavy toxic elements

distribution in the drinking water samples of

SW-Punjab, India

B.S. Bajwa a,*, Sanjeev Kumar a, Surinder Singh a, S.K. Sahoo b,

R.M. Tripathi b

a Department of Physics, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab 143005, India

b Health Physics Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai 400085, India

Acknowledgement

The authors are extremely grateful and sincerely acknowledge

the guidance, help in sampling, encouragement and

consistent involvement of Dr. R.M. Tripathi and Dr. S.K.

Sahoo, BARC, Mumbai during this work. We are also thankful

to the Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences (BRNS), Department

of Atomic Energy (DAE), Government of India, for

providing financial assistance during this research work.

Is it acceptable to acknowledge co-authors in the acknowledgement section of the paper? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_acceptable_to_acknowledge_co-authors_in_the_acknowledgement_section_of_the_paper [accessed May 23, 2016].

I'd say that the problem could be comparable to false or misleading titles and subtitles to articles, i.e. to provoke attention of readers but not necessarily doing science and research or academy justice.

Assuming the interpretation of the preceeding answer, then there is no "problem".

If there is a retraction, the evidence justifying it must be provided, with the author's co-operation or without. The real problem is not with fraud (which should of course be exposed and retracted), but with the cases where an author remains convinced that they are right despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Should not be published!

Dear Dr. Rathore,

Thank you for sharing.

I agree with you.

I accept authors to defend their findings.

But in cases of incorrect or highly misleading authors response, as you pointed out, apart from serious moral issues raised by such practice, the authors research findings become questionable. Thus, in my opinion, Journals must not publish authors responses of the aforementioned kind.

And of course, the frauds must be exposed and retracted as pointed out by Prof. Cameron, independently of authors views.

Dr Rathore, Yeah in my opinion also I feel that the responses should be retracted. But, the choice is always with the journal editor practically. This fact is like the court cases . The legal matters are always run considering that unless found guilty the person is not accused. Its the same with the authors . They have the right to defend and sometimes you have to agree with them. It's job of reviewers more to be correct and precise.