b******8
发帖数: 55 | 1 I am in the chemistry field. During our research we repeated a reaction
reported by an Indian group. We found out that the product of this reaction
was not the one they claimed. The analytical data in their supporting
information are also wrong. Is it appropriate to point out their mistake
when we publish our paper on a similar reaction?
Many thanks!!! |
H****y
发帖数: 2992 | 2 I wouldn't say, we found a "mistake" in ... I would just present my own data
and say "this is what we found and it's unclear why it's different from...
" |
M*P
发帖数: 6456 | 3 I would not say it's unclear why....
I would say our result is not consistent with what has been reported, and we
think the possible explanations are a) or b) or c).
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.8
【在 H****y 的大作中提到】
: I wouldn't say, we found a "mistake" in ... I would just present my own data
: and say "this is what we found and it's unclear why it's different from...
: "
|
s*******y
发帖数: 235 | |
M*****l
发帖数: 4478 | 5 对方不是牛journal或学霸，且这个反应不是文章讨论重点的话，可以无视。 |
m***c
发帖数: 1403 | 6 and just watch out, if it is a good journal, your paper might be sent to
this Indian group for review if you cited their paper heavily in your
manuscript. You don't know what they would react on this.
we
【在 M*P 的大作中提到】
: I would not say it's unclear why....
: I would say our result is not consistent with what has been reported, and we
: think the possible explanations are a) or b) or c).
:
: ★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 7.8
|
m******t
发帖数: 211 | 7 在结果或者观点与某些文献不一致的时候，原则基本是拉一派，压一派，呵呵。如果自
己的东西可靠，除非是遇到学霸，一般是可以通过合适的方式表达出来的。
烙印的结果还真可能是错的，在这种情况下，没有必要给他们的结果给出可能的解释。
实际上，有时确实没有办法对某些人的文章给出科学的解释，大家懂的。
无视他们的结果可以是一个方法，但一般是没有办法的办法，除非Reviewers不看文献
，要么烙印的那文章确实没有影响力。
按照拉一派，压一派的原则，那先找到可以支持自己结果的文献，在Introduction中将
烙印的结果与那些文献中的体系／理论／结果进行对照，别忘了说烙印的工作很
Interesting，因为他们的结果似乎能challenge其它文献中的研究。［这样做的另一个
好处是position自己的工作］
然后在讨论中先说你的结果和烙印结果的共同点，如果有的话，并尽可能说出这个共同
点的意义。然后说你和烙印结果的不同，指出你的结果与其它文献一致，并说明暂时没
有找到对烙印结果的可靠解释，在这个关键时候，不妨委婉地指出他们分析中的关键问
题。
文章应该成了，哈哈
补充一下，你是准备发与烙印的那片文章差不多量级的杂志吗？如果你的工作要高很多
，还真可以考虑一笔带过。 |
