3 ms·

There's pretty much no way to do that in interdisciplinary publications. In those cases the main reason you have the other people on board is because you don't

There's pretty much no way to do that in interdisciplinary publications. In those cases the main reason you have the other people on board is because you don't understand their field well enough. And there are plenty of cases where you won't notice anything is off unless you actually examine the raw data in detail, which isn't really realistic as it's an enormous amount of effort and duplicated work. There are certainly cases where co-authors should notice that something is off about the data. But there are plenty of situations where there is no reason at all to suspect a problem with the data, and where there is no way to know that someone is simply providing false data.

kergonath 5y ago
> In those cases the main reason you have the other people on board is because you don't understand their field well enough. “Don’t put your name on something you don’t understand” is a good rule to live by. All the authors share responsibility. We cannot accept credit when all works well and reject blame when it does not. > But there are plenty of situations where there is no reason at all to suspect a problem with the data, and where there is no way to know that someone is simply providing false data. Publishing an article with better results is definitely the best thing to do then. Short of that, publishing a letter to the editor sharing concerns is a good way of putting your doubts on record. Just removing your name looks too much like washing your hands of the whole thing.