Re: Elsevier's Vanishing Act

[Fran�ois Lapelerie <lapeleri@voltaire.timone.univ-mrs.fr>]

This is an answer to Anthony Watkinson:

>Incidentally my reading of the extensive correspondence covering the Human
>Immunology issue is contrary to the survey below. Elsevier did not make
>the first move. They followed the instructions of the society responsible
>for the content of the journal. I am not suggesting that this gets them
>off the hook, but the survey gives the wrong impression.

and David Goodman:

>I've one comment on the Antonio Arnaiz-Villena paper:
>I have been told by one of the most senior people at Elsevier that they
>did not really initiate it: that the Society insistcd that Elsevier write
>the letter.  Based on the nature of the self-defensive correspondance I
>have had with the Society, I believe this.

>Also, I think that it is not exactly correct that "Arnaiz-Villena's
>paper has been peer-reviewed." I think he himself was the only reviewer,
>and that he did not show it before publication to any colleague.

On the second point: reviewed or not reviewed?

AAV was editor of a special issue of Human Immunology: "Anthropology and
genetics markers". The editor of a special issue is free to choose
articles.  There are rules for reviewing articles published in scientific
journals, regular issues or special issues: they are not different. The
only thing is that the editor is free to choose reviewers.

AAV told me several times that his paper has been reviewed. AAV told the
same thing to the Chronicle and to Nature. AAV is not a newcomer in
science and in genetics. He has published more than 260 papers in
international journals, several books about historic genomics (see:
http://chopo.pntic.mec.es/~biolmol/personal/peraav.htm). He is a very
respected scientist: he is Head of the Department of Immunology, Hospital
12 de Octubre in Madrid; and teacher of genetics and Chairman at Faculties
of Medicine, Dept of Biology and Biochemistry (Madrid).  Why suspect AAV
of misconduct whereas he knows perfectly the rules of scientific
publications.

This paper has been reviewed, and We have at least 3 proofs. 1-In the
following issue if Human Immuology (october 2001, 62,p 1064), Dolly B.
Tyan President of ASHI published a letter: "Letter from the President and
Council (of ASHI)", and Nicoles Suciu-Foca, Editor-in-chief of Human
Immunology, published an Editorial. We don't see this accusation... It's
only later on that they used this accusation, when they saw that the case
was very murky and the procedure very objectionable and that many people
disagree with the withdrawing. It' only in Nature Genetics (february 2002,
30, 2 p 140) that she writes it: "This non peer-review paper... "without
any proof. 2-When in the same Letter, Suciu-Foca thinks she has to review
the review policy of Human Immunology ("ASHI has undertaken a review of
its policy regarding guest issues..."), she implicitly admits that a
policy does exist because you can review only an existing policy. And we
can suppose that this policy is not different from other policies about
peer-review. 3- In the same Editorial, Suciu-Foca writes: " As
Editor-in-chief, I did not read Dr. Antonio Arnaiz-Villena's own paper in
Human Immunology in depth until the issue was published". She admits that
- a control exists at the editor -in-chief level - she has read this
paper, but "not in depth". But it's the job of an editor-in-chief to read
papers before not after their publication. At least she was careless. And
if you read this paper, even not in depth, it's imposible to miss the
maps, for instance, which are supposed to be "inaccurate". They are large,
in brigh pizzas colors.  Or maybe she has not read this paper at all.

2-Elsevier made the first move. It's true that the copyright owner is the
ASHI. The ASHI asked Elsevier the retraction of the paper. But Suciu-Foca
never uses the word "retraction" in her paper published in Nature
genetics. She uses "withdrawing" only, meaning "erasing". Maybe Elsevier
had to erase this paper. But Paul Taylor was not allowed to ask to
physically remove the relavant pages. If Suciu-Foca has asked him to write
that infamous letter, he was not obliged to comply with her requirement.
This is why i wrote that Elsevier made the first (public) move.

Too bad that an European publisher is a rogue editor.

Francois Lapelerie
Universite de la Mediterranee
163 avenue de Luminy - Case 904
13288 Marseille cedex 9 - France
Tel    : 33-(0)491-829-251
Email: lapeleri@voltaire.timone.univ-mrs.fr