When Watson and Crick communicated the DNA structure paper to Nature in 1953, it was not peer reviewed. But the policy of Nature that time was to peer review the submitted manuscripts. The editor made the decision without getting the paper peer reviewed. Can that be thought of scientific misconduct or I am just being too harsh?
Hi Muneeb,
I think 'scientific misconduct' is a little harsh for failure to submit for review with the caveat that the editor did not gain personally from the publication of this work. If it had been the case that the findings in the paper were subsequently found to be false, then maybe there is case to answer. I know of two other more recent instances where a paper has been accepted without review by a journal which normally requires peer review. I think that the quality of the work spoke for itself in both cases and as long as the editor in charge has the knowledge to assess this, then it is fine by me.
Aleksandra
No scientific misconduct at all.
The landmark paper was, essentially, an editorial. There were no experiments performed to check as being appropriate or well controlled.
Watson and Crick took what was already in the literature (X-Ray Diffraction, physics of Van der Waal Forces, ratios of individual bases) and said (paraphrasing--the actual paper is freely available) 'Linus Pauling proposed a triple helix structure, we think he's wrong. We think it's a double helix. We don't have any direct proof yet, but what is out there supports this idea.'
Thanks Mathew. I must mention that it was not an editorial neither was it a commissioned commentary on literature. Then the second important point is that the editor who handled the manuscript bypassed the review process just because he liked the manuscript (which in no case justifies to evade the norms of the journal of such a repute). On the top of it, there was no data and it was all mere speculations. So a peer review was all the more important. Additionally, I have a feeling that since the paper was communicated from Cambridge, the manuscript was pampered (which is the case nowadays also). Had the same paper (one column and a half in length with no data and mere speculations) been communicated from some other institution, it would not even have been considered for a review, not to talk of the direct publication.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Molecular Biology
- Biomolecules
- Nucleic Acids
- DNA