about themselves, and others are nonexistent, therefore these unscrupulous scientists often make every move to be the first in publishing a result, no matter who
must pay the price.
Some scientists have built their reputation by pretending that they were the
‘‘first to recognize’’ a process or make a discovery just by ignoring what others
have accomplished in the past. Some American scientists are notorious for
ignoring their international partners. I believe one reason for doing so is due to the
fact that many U.S. colleagues depend on their research papers for getting more
money to continue their science, which is how they are supposed to be making a
living, and it is a fact that they badly need funding in order to survive. Even if all
this is true, it is still no excuse for ignoring the hard work of their other team
members.
Also, the publication of a scientific communication related to oceanic studies
differs from scientific research done at shore in experimental labs or during geological field studies on land. While field geology on land can be accomplished with
modest funding and involves a relatively small amount of personnel, ocean-going
expeditions involve huge amounts of personnel and incredible amounts of material
and logistics. In fact, a scientific project at sea is not at all a one-man show.
Oceanographic research is the result of the work accomplished by a large number
of people and requires a great deal of money, and above all, this kind of science
involves a huge team effort.
This sense of teamwork should not terminate at the end of the cruise, but rather
it needs to continue on shore when the laboratory studies and interpretation of data
are shared between the various partners. Also, it is a common practice that all the
participants on a mission will be ‘‘co-authors’’ of the first paper written after an
expedition. That is why many papers publishing data from sea going expeditions
might involve up to 10–15 authors. Criticism for such practices has been made by
other colleagues and even by a scientific journal (EOS), which published an editorial claiming that the long list of names cited as authors for a scientific paper is
misleading and often does not reflect the scientific input. I totally disagree with this
statement because I strongly believe that scientific results obtained at sea definitely
rely on ‘‘teamwork’’. For me, a mission’s final success will depend on the expertise
of each person chosen for the team. A minimum form of acknowledgment for his
group and their work on the part of a chief scientist is to have his entire team listed
as participants in the first publication after a cruise.
Also, we should be aware that data acquisition and maximum data processing at
sea is the best way to proceed for maximum efficiency. From my personal experience I have found it to be difficult and time consuming to go back to reprocess
data on shore once a cruise has ended. This is often unproductive because we may
have forgotten much of the information obtained, which we have shared with other
colleagues while at sea. Because of the large amount of information obtained in a
relatively short amount of time (1 or 2 months), it is difficult and annoying to be
obliged to re-view and/or reprocess the data when we have left the ship and are
again on shore.
20
1 An Overview of Oceanographic Exploration
must pay the price.
Some scientists have built their reputation by pretending that they were the
‘‘first to recognize’’ a process or make a discovery just by ignoring what others
have accomplished in the past. Some American scientists are notorious for
ignoring their international partners. I believe one reason for doing so is due to the
fact that many U.S. colleagues depend on their research papers for getting more
money to continue their science, which is how they are supposed to be making a
living, and it is a fact that they badly need funding in order to survive. Even if all
this is true, it is still no excuse for ignoring the hard work of their other team
members.
Also, the publication of a scientific communication related to oceanic studies
differs from scientific research done at shore in experimental labs or during geological field studies on land. While field geology on land can be accomplished with
modest funding and involves a relatively small amount of personnel, ocean-going
expeditions involve huge amounts of personnel and incredible amounts of material
and logistics. In fact, a scientific project at sea is not at all a one-man show.
Oceanographic research is the result of the work accomplished by a large number
of people and requires a great deal of money, and above all, this kind of science
involves a huge team effort.
This sense of teamwork should not terminate at the end of the cruise, but rather
it needs to continue on shore when the laboratory studies and interpretation of data
are shared between the various partners. Also, it is a common practice that all the
participants on a mission will be ‘‘co-authors’’ of the first paper written after an
expedition. That is why many papers publishing data from sea going expeditions
might involve up to 10–15 authors. Criticism for such practices has been made by
other colleagues and even by a scientific journal (EOS), which published an editorial claiming that the long list of names cited as authors for a scientific paper is
misleading and often does not reflect the scientific input. I totally disagree with this
statement because I strongly believe that scientific results obtained at sea definitely
rely on ‘‘teamwork’’. For me, a mission’s final success will depend on the expertise
of each person chosen for the team. A minimum form of acknowledgment for his
group and their work on the part of a chief scientist is to have his entire team listed
as participants in the first publication after a cruise.
Also, we should be aware that data acquisition and maximum data processing at
sea is the best way to proceed for maximum efficiency. From my personal experience I have found it to be difficult and time consuming to go back to reprocess
data on shore once a cruise has ended. This is often unproductive because we may
have forgotten much of the information obtained, which we have shared with other
colleagues while at sea. Because of the large amount of information obtained in a
relatively short amount of time (1 or 2 months), it is difficult and annoying to be
obliged to re-view and/or reprocess the data when we have left the ship and are
again on shore.
20
1 An Overview of Oceanographic Exploration