Found a major flaw in paper from home university – to which I would like to return












25















During my Ph.D. in condensed-matter physics, I published a paper together with two other students. The research group of the university that I am originally from (in Madrid, Spain) happened to work on the same subject and, later on, published another paper where they criticize our work, propose their own, and claim that theirs ‘works’ better. This group includes a famous and highly influential professor.



I could finally get around to study their results, reproduce every single bit of them, and found a major flaw, which invalidates their conclusions, including the superiority of their approach over ours.



I am now a permanent researcher in another country, but would like to go back to Madrid some day for personal reasons. It is a small world, and it is likely that I will have to interact/negotiate with that group if I ever want to go back.



On the one hand, I would like to publish this work where I found the flaw, in order to get things straightened out and properly settle the scientific issue. On the other hand, this may cause a strong embarrassment for them and be detrimental on a relational/political level, possibly implying a revenge from their side.



I could certainly write them a polite email before publishing, trying to be as delicate as possible and frame the whole thing in a positive way. However, I doubt that this will make a difference on the long term.



How can I deal with this?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Juan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    25















    During my Ph.D. in condensed-matter physics, I published a paper together with two other students. The research group of the university that I am originally from (in Madrid, Spain) happened to work on the same subject and, later on, published another paper where they criticize our work, propose their own, and claim that theirs ‘works’ better. This group includes a famous and highly influential professor.



    I could finally get around to study their results, reproduce every single bit of them, and found a major flaw, which invalidates their conclusions, including the superiority of their approach over ours.



    I am now a permanent researcher in another country, but would like to go back to Madrid some day for personal reasons. It is a small world, and it is likely that I will have to interact/negotiate with that group if I ever want to go back.



    On the one hand, I would like to publish this work where I found the flaw, in order to get things straightened out and properly settle the scientific issue. On the other hand, this may cause a strong embarrassment for them and be detrimental on a relational/political level, possibly implying a revenge from their side.



    I could certainly write them a polite email before publishing, trying to be as delicate as possible and frame the whole thing in a positive way. However, I doubt that this will make a difference on the long term.



    How can I deal with this?










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    Juan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      25












      25








      25


      2






      During my Ph.D. in condensed-matter physics, I published a paper together with two other students. The research group of the university that I am originally from (in Madrid, Spain) happened to work on the same subject and, later on, published another paper where they criticize our work, propose their own, and claim that theirs ‘works’ better. This group includes a famous and highly influential professor.



      I could finally get around to study their results, reproduce every single bit of them, and found a major flaw, which invalidates their conclusions, including the superiority of their approach over ours.



      I am now a permanent researcher in another country, but would like to go back to Madrid some day for personal reasons. It is a small world, and it is likely that I will have to interact/negotiate with that group if I ever want to go back.



      On the one hand, I would like to publish this work where I found the flaw, in order to get things straightened out and properly settle the scientific issue. On the other hand, this may cause a strong embarrassment for them and be detrimental on a relational/political level, possibly implying a revenge from their side.



      I could certainly write them a polite email before publishing, trying to be as delicate as possible and frame the whole thing in a positive way. However, I doubt that this will make a difference on the long term.



      How can I deal with this?










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Juan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      During my Ph.D. in condensed-matter physics, I published a paper together with two other students. The research group of the university that I am originally from (in Madrid, Spain) happened to work on the same subject and, later on, published another paper where they criticize our work, propose their own, and claim that theirs ‘works’ better. This group includes a famous and highly influential professor.



      I could finally get around to study their results, reproduce every single bit of them, and found a major flaw, which invalidates their conclusions, including the superiority of their approach over ours.



      I am now a permanent researcher in another country, but would like to go back to Madrid some day for personal reasons. It is a small world, and it is likely that I will have to interact/negotiate with that group if I ever want to go back.



      On the one hand, I would like to publish this work where I found the flaw, in order to get things straightened out and properly settle the scientific issue. On the other hand, this may cause a strong embarrassment for them and be detrimental on a relational/political level, possibly implying a revenge from their side.



      I could certainly write them a polite email before publishing, trying to be as delicate as possible and frame the whole thing in a positive way. However, I doubt that this will make a difference on the long term.



      How can I deal with this?







      physics errors-erratum networking






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Juan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Juan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 20 mins ago









      Wrzlprmft

      33.3k9107182




      33.3k9107182






      New contributor




      Juan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 15 hours ago









      JuanJuan

      12614




      12614




      New contributor




      Juan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Juan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Juan is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          31














          Don't make it personal. Keep it about the science. You can inform them of the flaw and let them fix it or you could just publish a new paper with better results, pointing out the flaw if needed. That would depend on whether you want the new result under your name or are happy enough for it to be under theirs.



          If you write, however, and get pushback, evaluate it fully and then publish or not as you choose. But I wouldn't get into an argumentative back and forth about it. And if you just decide to publish it, as a courtesy you can send them your paper when you submit it to a publisher: For Your Information...



          The science is the important thing.






          share|improve this answer



















          • 18





            "The science is the important thing" - or at least it should be to both parties. I guess the OP is fearing that it might not be for the other party; but any discussion should be able to highlight this line and diffuse any issue

            – UKMonkey
            13 hours ago








          • 3





            Isn't turnabout fair play here? Research Team B thought they found an error in Team A's conjecture and instead of reaching out, they published a paper and said that their way worked better. Why doesn't that set the precedent for moving forward?

            – zero298
            11 hours ago






          • 4





            Make it about the science @zero298. Not about payback. In the long run you come out ahead that way.

            – Buffy
            10 hours ago






          • 1





            +1. Also: whilst trying to be objective and sticking to the science, you can only again by keeping all messaging positive. In a personal communication, suggest "I am trying to understand X because it seems to me that ", rather than "X is wrong. This is the right solution". Similarly when publishing, try to position as building on the other's work rather that taking it down.

            – Keith
            8 hours ago






          • 2





            @Buffy I get what you mean, but I think zero's point was not about getting payback. Rather, it was about not feeling bad or nervous about just publishing

            – user94036
            7 hours ago



















          11














          I'm no physicist, but speaking from common sense: Depending on how "ground-breaking" your discovery of their mistake is, here are the options I would consider:




          • Silly mistake that could have been avoided by being careful or by knowing a bit more math: Write up a correction, contact the group and offer to co-author the correction with them, so that way everyone "saves face" and you are likely to remain friends and future colegas.


          • Fundamental mistake that some of their team members may not pick up even after lengthy communication: proceed as above initially, knowing that you may end up publishing alone (if you're correct about the mistake and manage to convince a journal). Friendships may or may not be damaged.


          • Earth-shattering stuff that requires a gestalt shift: write up, contact them for the sake of politeness and to give them a chance for a rebuttal, but publish alone. Science wins, but friendships not so much.



          In all cases, remain super polite and respectful, obviously.



          A diplomatic way to title your write-up: "Corrigendum" or even "Comment" rather than "Rebuttal."






          share|improve this answer































            2














            It's clear that you have your own interests in this special situation that you outlined. Other researchers have other interests. If you believe your work is better, as a physicist/reader I would expect you to publish your work/method or comment their critics in a new publication. Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general.



            Don't put your personal interests over the scientific need to publish the flaw you found, especially when you are in a permanent position paid by taxes. You are in a permanent position.






            share|improve this answer










            New contributor




            Michael Schmidt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.
















            • 8





              "Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general." It would of course be a bad thing to write a private email and nothing else. But nobody is suggesting that; the suggestions (which are reasonable and conform to what people do in practice) are to start by writing a private email, in an attempt to collaborate on correcting the scientific record.

              – Greg Martin
              10 hours ago











            • Moderator’s notice: I concur with @V2Blast’s edit and the previous comments: Please take any meta discussions to Academia Meta. However note that we already have some discussions going along the line of what you were writing.

              – Wrzlprmft
              11 mins ago



















            0














            The first thing to do is to typeset your work and check it - if possible ask someone else to look over it if only superficially to make sure there is no obvious oversight on your part. Typesetting is a form of deep proofreading so this will also force you re-evaluate your own work with the mindset of explaining to others what you have done.



            The next thing is to contact one of the persons involved (presumably the senior author if possible) in the erroneous paper, asking for clarifications and supplying your notes as evidence that you cannot duplicate or disagree with the original result. Statements like I am quite puzzled as to how you got from here to here because... or Could you clarify why you make this approximation because it seems to me... are useful for softly directing attention to the contentious issues.



            Presumably this would be enough to get some sort of discussion going. The key point is to allow plenty of time for the other group to assess your own work and compare it to theirs.



            Finally, you can eventually write your own rebuttal, including in the conclusion or acknowledgments discussions with authors of said papers if such a back-and-forth took place.



            I have been on the receiving end of such papers, i.e. some groups have published results challenging work done with collaborators, whereas in fact we had never made the claims under challenge. I have also received advanced copies of manuscript citing my papers and found the authors to have overlooked a crucial details. I much prefer the second scenario, irrespective of where an error was to be found.






            share|improve this answer































              0














              There are four possibilities, for this moment:

              1) They are wrong, you are right.

              2) You are wrong, they are right.

              3) Both you and them are wrong;

              4) Both you and them are right.



              It is also possible that future will cast new light on the situation - but that no one can predict.



              Hence, publish as-is, reference the other study, say that your result is different and explain why it is different. There are nicer ways of putting forward why the other party is mistaken, ranging from:

              "However, if the term is omitted, ..."

              all the way up/down to:

              "... which appears to be a typesetting error ..."






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              Volare is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                Your Answer








                StackExchange.ready(function() {
                var channelOptions = {
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "415"
                };
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                createEditor();
                });
                }
                else {
                createEditor();
                }
                });

                function createEditor() {
                StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                convertImagesToLinks: true,
                noModals: true,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: 10,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                imageUploader: {
                brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                allowUrls: true
                },
                noCode: true, onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                });


                }
                });






                Juan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function () {
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125149%2ffound-a-major-flaw-in-paper-from-home-university-to-which-i-would-like-to-retu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                5 Answers
                5






                active

                oldest

                votes








                5 Answers
                5






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                31














                Don't make it personal. Keep it about the science. You can inform them of the flaw and let them fix it or you could just publish a new paper with better results, pointing out the flaw if needed. That would depend on whether you want the new result under your name or are happy enough for it to be under theirs.



                If you write, however, and get pushback, evaluate it fully and then publish or not as you choose. But I wouldn't get into an argumentative back and forth about it. And if you just decide to publish it, as a courtesy you can send them your paper when you submit it to a publisher: For Your Information...



                The science is the important thing.






                share|improve this answer



















                • 18





                  "The science is the important thing" - or at least it should be to both parties. I guess the OP is fearing that it might not be for the other party; but any discussion should be able to highlight this line and diffuse any issue

                  – UKMonkey
                  13 hours ago








                • 3





                  Isn't turnabout fair play here? Research Team B thought they found an error in Team A's conjecture and instead of reaching out, they published a paper and said that their way worked better. Why doesn't that set the precedent for moving forward?

                  – zero298
                  11 hours ago






                • 4





                  Make it about the science @zero298. Not about payback. In the long run you come out ahead that way.

                  – Buffy
                  10 hours ago






                • 1





                  +1. Also: whilst trying to be objective and sticking to the science, you can only again by keeping all messaging positive. In a personal communication, suggest "I am trying to understand X because it seems to me that ", rather than "X is wrong. This is the right solution". Similarly when publishing, try to position as building on the other's work rather that taking it down.

                  – Keith
                  8 hours ago






                • 2





                  @Buffy I get what you mean, but I think zero's point was not about getting payback. Rather, it was about not feeling bad or nervous about just publishing

                  – user94036
                  7 hours ago
















                31














                Don't make it personal. Keep it about the science. You can inform them of the flaw and let them fix it or you could just publish a new paper with better results, pointing out the flaw if needed. That would depend on whether you want the new result under your name or are happy enough for it to be under theirs.



                If you write, however, and get pushback, evaluate it fully and then publish or not as you choose. But I wouldn't get into an argumentative back and forth about it. And if you just decide to publish it, as a courtesy you can send them your paper when you submit it to a publisher: For Your Information...



                The science is the important thing.






                share|improve this answer



















                • 18





                  "The science is the important thing" - or at least it should be to both parties. I guess the OP is fearing that it might not be for the other party; but any discussion should be able to highlight this line and diffuse any issue

                  – UKMonkey
                  13 hours ago








                • 3





                  Isn't turnabout fair play here? Research Team B thought they found an error in Team A's conjecture and instead of reaching out, they published a paper and said that their way worked better. Why doesn't that set the precedent for moving forward?

                  – zero298
                  11 hours ago






                • 4





                  Make it about the science @zero298. Not about payback. In the long run you come out ahead that way.

                  – Buffy
                  10 hours ago






                • 1





                  +1. Also: whilst trying to be objective and sticking to the science, you can only again by keeping all messaging positive. In a personal communication, suggest "I am trying to understand X because it seems to me that ", rather than "X is wrong. This is the right solution". Similarly when publishing, try to position as building on the other's work rather that taking it down.

                  – Keith
                  8 hours ago






                • 2





                  @Buffy I get what you mean, but I think zero's point was not about getting payback. Rather, it was about not feeling bad or nervous about just publishing

                  – user94036
                  7 hours ago














                31












                31








                31







                Don't make it personal. Keep it about the science. You can inform them of the flaw and let them fix it or you could just publish a new paper with better results, pointing out the flaw if needed. That would depend on whether you want the new result under your name or are happy enough for it to be under theirs.



                If you write, however, and get pushback, evaluate it fully and then publish or not as you choose. But I wouldn't get into an argumentative back and forth about it. And if you just decide to publish it, as a courtesy you can send them your paper when you submit it to a publisher: For Your Information...



                The science is the important thing.






                share|improve this answer













                Don't make it personal. Keep it about the science. You can inform them of the flaw and let them fix it or you could just publish a new paper with better results, pointing out the flaw if needed. That would depend on whether you want the new result under your name or are happy enough for it to be under theirs.



                If you write, however, and get pushback, evaluate it fully and then publish or not as you choose. But I wouldn't get into an argumentative back and forth about it. And if you just decide to publish it, as a courtesy you can send them your paper when you submit it to a publisher: For Your Information...



                The science is the important thing.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 14 hours ago









                BuffyBuffy

                47.4k13152239




                47.4k13152239








                • 18





                  "The science is the important thing" - or at least it should be to both parties. I guess the OP is fearing that it might not be for the other party; but any discussion should be able to highlight this line and diffuse any issue

                  – UKMonkey
                  13 hours ago








                • 3





                  Isn't turnabout fair play here? Research Team B thought they found an error in Team A's conjecture and instead of reaching out, they published a paper and said that their way worked better. Why doesn't that set the precedent for moving forward?

                  – zero298
                  11 hours ago






                • 4





                  Make it about the science @zero298. Not about payback. In the long run you come out ahead that way.

                  – Buffy
                  10 hours ago






                • 1





                  +1. Also: whilst trying to be objective and sticking to the science, you can only again by keeping all messaging positive. In a personal communication, suggest "I am trying to understand X because it seems to me that ", rather than "X is wrong. This is the right solution". Similarly when publishing, try to position as building on the other's work rather that taking it down.

                  – Keith
                  8 hours ago






                • 2





                  @Buffy I get what you mean, but I think zero's point was not about getting payback. Rather, it was about not feeling bad or nervous about just publishing

                  – user94036
                  7 hours ago














                • 18





                  "The science is the important thing" - or at least it should be to both parties. I guess the OP is fearing that it might not be for the other party; but any discussion should be able to highlight this line and diffuse any issue

                  – UKMonkey
                  13 hours ago








                • 3





                  Isn't turnabout fair play here? Research Team B thought they found an error in Team A's conjecture and instead of reaching out, they published a paper and said that their way worked better. Why doesn't that set the precedent for moving forward?

                  – zero298
                  11 hours ago






                • 4





                  Make it about the science @zero298. Not about payback. In the long run you come out ahead that way.

                  – Buffy
                  10 hours ago






                • 1





                  +1. Also: whilst trying to be objective and sticking to the science, you can only again by keeping all messaging positive. In a personal communication, suggest "I am trying to understand X because it seems to me that ", rather than "X is wrong. This is the right solution". Similarly when publishing, try to position as building on the other's work rather that taking it down.

                  – Keith
                  8 hours ago






                • 2





                  @Buffy I get what you mean, but I think zero's point was not about getting payback. Rather, it was about not feeling bad or nervous about just publishing

                  – user94036
                  7 hours ago








                18




                18





                "The science is the important thing" - or at least it should be to both parties. I guess the OP is fearing that it might not be for the other party; but any discussion should be able to highlight this line and diffuse any issue

                – UKMonkey
                13 hours ago







                "The science is the important thing" - or at least it should be to both parties. I guess the OP is fearing that it might not be for the other party; but any discussion should be able to highlight this line and diffuse any issue

                – UKMonkey
                13 hours ago






                3




                3





                Isn't turnabout fair play here? Research Team B thought they found an error in Team A's conjecture and instead of reaching out, they published a paper and said that their way worked better. Why doesn't that set the precedent for moving forward?

                – zero298
                11 hours ago





                Isn't turnabout fair play here? Research Team B thought they found an error in Team A's conjecture and instead of reaching out, they published a paper and said that their way worked better. Why doesn't that set the precedent for moving forward?

                – zero298
                11 hours ago




                4




                4





                Make it about the science @zero298. Not about payback. In the long run you come out ahead that way.

                – Buffy
                10 hours ago





                Make it about the science @zero298. Not about payback. In the long run you come out ahead that way.

                – Buffy
                10 hours ago




                1




                1





                +1. Also: whilst trying to be objective and sticking to the science, you can only again by keeping all messaging positive. In a personal communication, suggest "I am trying to understand X because it seems to me that ", rather than "X is wrong. This is the right solution". Similarly when publishing, try to position as building on the other's work rather that taking it down.

                – Keith
                8 hours ago





                +1. Also: whilst trying to be objective and sticking to the science, you can only again by keeping all messaging positive. In a personal communication, suggest "I am trying to understand X because it seems to me that ", rather than "X is wrong. This is the right solution". Similarly when publishing, try to position as building on the other's work rather that taking it down.

                – Keith
                8 hours ago




                2




                2





                @Buffy I get what you mean, but I think zero's point was not about getting payback. Rather, it was about not feeling bad or nervous about just publishing

                – user94036
                7 hours ago





                @Buffy I get what you mean, but I think zero's point was not about getting payback. Rather, it was about not feeling bad or nervous about just publishing

                – user94036
                7 hours ago











                11














                I'm no physicist, but speaking from common sense: Depending on how "ground-breaking" your discovery of their mistake is, here are the options I would consider:




                • Silly mistake that could have been avoided by being careful or by knowing a bit more math: Write up a correction, contact the group and offer to co-author the correction with them, so that way everyone "saves face" and you are likely to remain friends and future colegas.


                • Fundamental mistake that some of their team members may not pick up even after lengthy communication: proceed as above initially, knowing that you may end up publishing alone (if you're correct about the mistake and manage to convince a journal). Friendships may or may not be damaged.


                • Earth-shattering stuff that requires a gestalt shift: write up, contact them for the sake of politeness and to give them a chance for a rebuttal, but publish alone. Science wins, but friendships not so much.



                In all cases, remain super polite and respectful, obviously.



                A diplomatic way to title your write-up: "Corrigendum" or even "Comment" rather than "Rebuttal."






                share|improve this answer




























                  11














                  I'm no physicist, but speaking from common sense: Depending on how "ground-breaking" your discovery of their mistake is, here are the options I would consider:




                  • Silly mistake that could have been avoided by being careful or by knowing a bit more math: Write up a correction, contact the group and offer to co-author the correction with them, so that way everyone "saves face" and you are likely to remain friends and future colegas.


                  • Fundamental mistake that some of their team members may not pick up even after lengthy communication: proceed as above initially, knowing that you may end up publishing alone (if you're correct about the mistake and manage to convince a journal). Friendships may or may not be damaged.


                  • Earth-shattering stuff that requires a gestalt shift: write up, contact them for the sake of politeness and to give them a chance for a rebuttal, but publish alone. Science wins, but friendships not so much.



                  In all cases, remain super polite and respectful, obviously.



                  A diplomatic way to title your write-up: "Corrigendum" or even "Comment" rather than "Rebuttal."






                  share|improve this answer


























                    11












                    11








                    11







                    I'm no physicist, but speaking from common sense: Depending on how "ground-breaking" your discovery of their mistake is, here are the options I would consider:




                    • Silly mistake that could have been avoided by being careful or by knowing a bit more math: Write up a correction, contact the group and offer to co-author the correction with them, so that way everyone "saves face" and you are likely to remain friends and future colegas.


                    • Fundamental mistake that some of their team members may not pick up even after lengthy communication: proceed as above initially, knowing that you may end up publishing alone (if you're correct about the mistake and manage to convince a journal). Friendships may or may not be damaged.


                    • Earth-shattering stuff that requires a gestalt shift: write up, contact them for the sake of politeness and to give them a chance for a rebuttal, but publish alone. Science wins, but friendships not so much.



                    In all cases, remain super polite and respectful, obviously.



                    A diplomatic way to title your write-up: "Corrigendum" or even "Comment" rather than "Rebuttal."






                    share|improve this answer













                    I'm no physicist, but speaking from common sense: Depending on how "ground-breaking" your discovery of their mistake is, here are the options I would consider:




                    • Silly mistake that could have been avoided by being careful or by knowing a bit more math: Write up a correction, contact the group and offer to co-author the correction with them, so that way everyone "saves face" and you are likely to remain friends and future colegas.


                    • Fundamental mistake that some of their team members may not pick up even after lengthy communication: proceed as above initially, knowing that you may end up publishing alone (if you're correct about the mistake and manage to convince a journal). Friendships may or may not be damaged.


                    • Earth-shattering stuff that requires a gestalt shift: write up, contact them for the sake of politeness and to give them a chance for a rebuttal, but publish alone. Science wins, but friendships not so much.



                    In all cases, remain super polite and respectful, obviously.



                    A diplomatic way to title your write-up: "Corrigendum" or even "Comment" rather than "Rebuttal."







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 12 hours ago









                    PatrickTPatrickT

                    29017




                    29017























                        2














                        It's clear that you have your own interests in this special situation that you outlined. Other researchers have other interests. If you believe your work is better, as a physicist/reader I would expect you to publish your work/method or comment their critics in a new publication. Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general.



                        Don't put your personal interests over the scientific need to publish the flaw you found, especially when you are in a permanent position paid by taxes. You are in a permanent position.






                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Michael Schmidt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.
















                        • 8





                          "Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general." It would of course be a bad thing to write a private email and nothing else. But nobody is suggesting that; the suggestions (which are reasonable and conform to what people do in practice) are to start by writing a private email, in an attempt to collaborate on correcting the scientific record.

                          – Greg Martin
                          10 hours ago











                        • Moderator’s notice: I concur with @V2Blast’s edit and the previous comments: Please take any meta discussions to Academia Meta. However note that we already have some discussions going along the line of what you were writing.

                          – Wrzlprmft
                          11 mins ago
















                        2














                        It's clear that you have your own interests in this special situation that you outlined. Other researchers have other interests. If you believe your work is better, as a physicist/reader I would expect you to publish your work/method or comment their critics in a new publication. Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general.



                        Don't put your personal interests over the scientific need to publish the flaw you found, especially when you are in a permanent position paid by taxes. You are in a permanent position.






                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Michael Schmidt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.
















                        • 8





                          "Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general." It would of course be a bad thing to write a private email and nothing else. But nobody is suggesting that; the suggestions (which are reasonable and conform to what people do in practice) are to start by writing a private email, in an attempt to collaborate on correcting the scientific record.

                          – Greg Martin
                          10 hours ago











                        • Moderator’s notice: I concur with @V2Blast’s edit and the previous comments: Please take any meta discussions to Academia Meta. However note that we already have some discussions going along the line of what you were writing.

                          – Wrzlprmft
                          11 mins ago














                        2












                        2








                        2







                        It's clear that you have your own interests in this special situation that you outlined. Other researchers have other interests. If you believe your work is better, as a physicist/reader I would expect you to publish your work/method or comment their critics in a new publication. Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general.



                        Don't put your personal interests over the scientific need to publish the flaw you found, especially when you are in a permanent position paid by taxes. You are in a permanent position.






                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Michael Schmidt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.










                        It's clear that you have your own interests in this special situation that you outlined. Other researchers have other interests. If you believe your work is better, as a physicist/reader I would expect you to publish your work/method or comment their critics in a new publication. Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general.



                        Don't put your personal interests over the scientific need to publish the flaw you found, especially when you are in a permanent position paid by taxes. You are in a permanent position.







                        share|improve this answer










                        New contributor




                        Michael Schmidt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                        share|improve this answer



                        share|improve this answer








                        edited 7 hours ago









                        V2Blast

                        17418




                        17418






                        New contributor




                        Michael Schmidt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.









                        answered 14 hours ago









                        Michael SchmidtMichael Schmidt

                        856




                        856




                        New contributor




                        Michael Schmidt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.





                        New contributor





                        Michael Schmidt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.






                        Michael Schmidt is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                        Check out our Code of Conduct.








                        • 8





                          "Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general." It would of course be a bad thing to write a private email and nothing else. But nobody is suggesting that; the suggestions (which are reasonable and conform to what people do in practice) are to start by writing a private email, in an attempt to collaborate on correcting the scientific record.

                          – Greg Martin
                          10 hours ago











                        • Moderator’s notice: I concur with @V2Blast’s edit and the previous comments: Please take any meta discussions to Academia Meta. However note that we already have some discussions going along the line of what you were writing.

                          – Wrzlprmft
                          11 mins ago














                        • 8





                          "Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general." It would of course be a bad thing to write a private email and nothing else. But nobody is suggesting that; the suggestions (which are reasonable and conform to what people do in practice) are to start by writing a private email, in an attempt to collaborate on correcting the scientific record.

                          – Greg Martin
                          10 hours ago











                        • Moderator’s notice: I concur with @V2Blast’s edit and the previous comments: Please take any meta discussions to Academia Meta. However note that we already have some discussions going along the line of what you were writing.

                          – Wrzlprmft
                          11 mins ago








                        8




                        8





                        "Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general." It would of course be a bad thing to write a private email and nothing else. But nobody is suggesting that; the suggestions (which are reasonable and conform to what people do in practice) are to start by writing a private email, in an attempt to collaborate on correcting the scientific record.

                        – Greg Martin
                        10 hours ago





                        "Writing privately an email to them is the worst thing you can do for the readers of these articles from both groups and therefore for academia in general." It would of course be a bad thing to write a private email and nothing else. But nobody is suggesting that; the suggestions (which are reasonable and conform to what people do in practice) are to start by writing a private email, in an attempt to collaborate on correcting the scientific record.

                        – Greg Martin
                        10 hours ago













                        Moderator’s notice: I concur with @V2Blast’s edit and the previous comments: Please take any meta discussions to Academia Meta. However note that we already have some discussions going along the line of what you were writing.

                        – Wrzlprmft
                        11 mins ago





                        Moderator’s notice: I concur with @V2Blast’s edit and the previous comments: Please take any meta discussions to Academia Meta. However note that we already have some discussions going along the line of what you were writing.

                        – Wrzlprmft
                        11 mins ago











                        0














                        The first thing to do is to typeset your work and check it - if possible ask someone else to look over it if only superficially to make sure there is no obvious oversight on your part. Typesetting is a form of deep proofreading so this will also force you re-evaluate your own work with the mindset of explaining to others what you have done.



                        The next thing is to contact one of the persons involved (presumably the senior author if possible) in the erroneous paper, asking for clarifications and supplying your notes as evidence that you cannot duplicate or disagree with the original result. Statements like I am quite puzzled as to how you got from here to here because... or Could you clarify why you make this approximation because it seems to me... are useful for softly directing attention to the contentious issues.



                        Presumably this would be enough to get some sort of discussion going. The key point is to allow plenty of time for the other group to assess your own work and compare it to theirs.



                        Finally, you can eventually write your own rebuttal, including in the conclusion or acknowledgments discussions with authors of said papers if such a back-and-forth took place.



                        I have been on the receiving end of such papers, i.e. some groups have published results challenging work done with collaborators, whereas in fact we had never made the claims under challenge. I have also received advanced copies of manuscript citing my papers and found the authors to have overlooked a crucial details. I much prefer the second scenario, irrespective of where an error was to be found.






                        share|improve this answer




























                          0














                          The first thing to do is to typeset your work and check it - if possible ask someone else to look over it if only superficially to make sure there is no obvious oversight on your part. Typesetting is a form of deep proofreading so this will also force you re-evaluate your own work with the mindset of explaining to others what you have done.



                          The next thing is to contact one of the persons involved (presumably the senior author if possible) in the erroneous paper, asking for clarifications and supplying your notes as evidence that you cannot duplicate or disagree with the original result. Statements like I am quite puzzled as to how you got from here to here because... or Could you clarify why you make this approximation because it seems to me... are useful for softly directing attention to the contentious issues.



                          Presumably this would be enough to get some sort of discussion going. The key point is to allow plenty of time for the other group to assess your own work and compare it to theirs.



                          Finally, you can eventually write your own rebuttal, including in the conclusion or acknowledgments discussions with authors of said papers if such a back-and-forth took place.



                          I have been on the receiving end of such papers, i.e. some groups have published results challenging work done with collaborators, whereas in fact we had never made the claims under challenge. I have also received advanced copies of manuscript citing my papers and found the authors to have overlooked a crucial details. I much prefer the second scenario, irrespective of where an error was to be found.






                          share|improve this answer


























                            0












                            0








                            0







                            The first thing to do is to typeset your work and check it - if possible ask someone else to look over it if only superficially to make sure there is no obvious oversight on your part. Typesetting is a form of deep proofreading so this will also force you re-evaluate your own work with the mindset of explaining to others what you have done.



                            The next thing is to contact one of the persons involved (presumably the senior author if possible) in the erroneous paper, asking for clarifications and supplying your notes as evidence that you cannot duplicate or disagree with the original result. Statements like I am quite puzzled as to how you got from here to here because... or Could you clarify why you make this approximation because it seems to me... are useful for softly directing attention to the contentious issues.



                            Presumably this would be enough to get some sort of discussion going. The key point is to allow plenty of time for the other group to assess your own work and compare it to theirs.



                            Finally, you can eventually write your own rebuttal, including in the conclusion or acknowledgments discussions with authors of said papers if such a back-and-forth took place.



                            I have been on the receiving end of such papers, i.e. some groups have published results challenging work done with collaborators, whereas in fact we had never made the claims under challenge. I have also received advanced copies of manuscript citing my papers and found the authors to have overlooked a crucial details. I much prefer the second scenario, irrespective of where an error was to be found.






                            share|improve this answer













                            The first thing to do is to typeset your work and check it - if possible ask someone else to look over it if only superficially to make sure there is no obvious oversight on your part. Typesetting is a form of deep proofreading so this will also force you re-evaluate your own work with the mindset of explaining to others what you have done.



                            The next thing is to contact one of the persons involved (presumably the senior author if possible) in the erroneous paper, asking for clarifications and supplying your notes as evidence that you cannot duplicate or disagree with the original result. Statements like I am quite puzzled as to how you got from here to here because... or Could you clarify why you make this approximation because it seems to me... are useful for softly directing attention to the contentious issues.



                            Presumably this would be enough to get some sort of discussion going. The key point is to allow plenty of time for the other group to assess your own work and compare it to theirs.



                            Finally, you can eventually write your own rebuttal, including in the conclusion or acknowledgments discussions with authors of said papers if such a back-and-forth took place.



                            I have been on the receiving end of such papers, i.e. some groups have published results challenging work done with collaborators, whereas in fact we had never made the claims under challenge. I have also received advanced copies of manuscript citing my papers and found the authors to have overlooked a crucial details. I much prefer the second scenario, irrespective of where an error was to be found.







                            share|improve this answer












                            share|improve this answer



                            share|improve this answer










                            answered 5 hours ago









                            ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero

                            1,10011




                            1,10011























                                0














                                There are four possibilities, for this moment:

                                1) They are wrong, you are right.

                                2) You are wrong, they are right.

                                3) Both you and them are wrong;

                                4) Both you and them are right.



                                It is also possible that future will cast new light on the situation - but that no one can predict.



                                Hence, publish as-is, reference the other study, say that your result is different and explain why it is different. There are nicer ways of putting forward why the other party is mistaken, ranging from:

                                "However, if the term is omitted, ..."

                                all the way up/down to:

                                "... which appears to be a typesetting error ..."






                                share|improve this answer








                                New contributor




                                Volare is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                Check out our Code of Conduct.

























                                  0














                                  There are four possibilities, for this moment:

                                  1) They are wrong, you are right.

                                  2) You are wrong, they are right.

                                  3) Both you and them are wrong;

                                  4) Both you and them are right.



                                  It is also possible that future will cast new light on the situation - but that no one can predict.



                                  Hence, publish as-is, reference the other study, say that your result is different and explain why it is different. There are nicer ways of putting forward why the other party is mistaken, ranging from:

                                  "However, if the term is omitted, ..."

                                  all the way up/down to:

                                  "... which appears to be a typesetting error ..."






                                  share|improve this answer








                                  New contributor




                                  Volare is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.























                                    0












                                    0








                                    0







                                    There are four possibilities, for this moment:

                                    1) They are wrong, you are right.

                                    2) You are wrong, they are right.

                                    3) Both you and them are wrong;

                                    4) Both you and them are right.



                                    It is also possible that future will cast new light on the situation - but that no one can predict.



                                    Hence, publish as-is, reference the other study, say that your result is different and explain why it is different. There are nicer ways of putting forward why the other party is mistaken, ranging from:

                                    "However, if the term is omitted, ..."

                                    all the way up/down to:

                                    "... which appears to be a typesetting error ..."






                                    share|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    Volare is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.










                                    There are four possibilities, for this moment:

                                    1) They are wrong, you are right.

                                    2) You are wrong, they are right.

                                    3) Both you and them are wrong;

                                    4) Both you and them are right.



                                    It is also possible that future will cast new light on the situation - but that no one can predict.



                                    Hence, publish as-is, reference the other study, say that your result is different and explain why it is different. There are nicer ways of putting forward why the other party is mistaken, ranging from:

                                    "However, if the term is omitted, ..."

                                    all the way up/down to:

                                    "... which appears to be a typesetting error ..."







                                    share|improve this answer








                                    New contributor




                                    Volare is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                    share|improve this answer



                                    share|improve this answer






                                    New contributor




                                    Volare is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                    answered 53 mins ago









                                    VolareVolare

                                    1




                                    1




                                    New contributor




                                    Volare is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                    New contributor





                                    Volare is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                    Volare is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















                                        Juan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                        draft saved

                                        draft discarded


















                                        Juan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                        Juan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                        Juan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                        Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function () {
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f125149%2ffound-a-major-flaw-in-paper-from-home-university-to-which-i-would-like-to-retu%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                        }
                                        );

                                        Post as a guest















                                        Required, but never shown





















































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown

































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

                                        Single-Malt-Whisky

                                        Czorneboh