I'm reading in the Nature of last week (September, 4th) about the nervousness of some scientist with the colleges that goes to a conference and takes photos with digital cameras and uses the data for their own publications.
I cannot definitely understand this position. The first ones, the lecturers are presenting some data in public and they can have the title of the first of publish it. At the same time this can be used as a base of the next publication upgrade, or to find any mistake that exists.
In this second possibility, imagine that in this PAMELA presentation they announce the dark matter detection (implies existence) with a mistaken proves that no one in the conference can study because of their obscurity. I'm not saying they should did mistakes, I'm saying not other scientist can check it. Yes, they like to review with some other colleges chosen by themselves, but this doesn't mean publish.
If they don't trust a 100% to their study why they publish it? Because no one else publish it before but saving the dress if they made a mistake? Oh, please! This have more sense in politics, or some where than the only important think is naming. There is no price for the second who discover dark matter, I understand it. But what happens if another scientist team is closer to the verified results and publish it; will this ones says 'they copy it from us' with an ultra-hidden camera in the conference?
Actualization: Reading more about this column in Nature, I understand the problem is more because the copyright of many publications than specifically because the scientist doesn't like it. Many times the slides are published after the conference, but the problem can come when the journals decides which data can be publish out them. How is the owner of the investigations?
No comments:
Post a Comment