Here’s the letter Jonathan Pruitt’s lawyers have been sending to journals and his former collaborators #pruittgate #pruittdata (UPDATED)

Science journalist Leonid Schneider has gotten hold of a redacted copy of the letter that embattled behavioral ecologist Jonathan Pruitt’s lawyers have been sending to journals in which he published, and to his former collaborators. The letter tries to keep them from talking publicly about the many data anomalies underpinning Pruitt’s papers. Anomalies for which the most obvious explanation, in many cases, is intentional fabrication. Pruitt himself insists that there are entirely innocent explanations for the anomalies. But so far he has yet to provide innocent explanations that convince anyone who’s looked closely at his data and papers, at least as far as I’m aware. But we’ll see; investigation is ongoing.

The link includes a copy of the letter, Schneider’s forceful comments on it, quotes from some recipients of the letter, and examples of some of the data anomalies in question. Stick around to the end for a quote from Pruitt that directly contradicts the letter, claiming that he’s “happy for folks to engage in public discourse about my data integrity”.

I was most interested in the letter because it reveals how Pruitt will defend himself against allegations of misconduct, at least in one case. He claims that, in at least one case, the data anomalies are not in the data file on which his paper was based, but are only in a different data file that was provided to investigators by mistake.

If you’re new to this story and need background, see here.

UPDATE: Niels Dingemanse comments to say that the letters haven’t changed how journal editors are proceeding with their investigations into Pruitt’s papers.

5 thoughts on “Here’s the letter Jonathan Pruitt’s lawyers have been sending to journals and his former collaborators #pruittgate #pruittdata (UPDATED)

  1. It seems to me that this lawyer, and apparently some editors, has missed the way that retractions work. Pruitt’s employers and funders have the authority and responsibility of investigating him for misconduct, and the authority to impose penalties if they find it. Retractions by journals are different; they happen because the research reported in a paper is found to be incorrect or unreliable. That could happen because of innocent errors, and such papers do get retracted (correct me if I’m wrong). The point of retraction is not to judge guilt of an individual, but to correct the scientific record as published by the journal in question.

  2. I am just surprised at how much the lawyers seem to (or pretend to) be ignorant of the “normative practices of the field” they themselves invoke in their letter… Either that’s quite unprofessional to not get more information before acting on behalf of your client, or they are just betting this will frighten people enough to gain time. I would not be confident in the latter though…

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.