Htydjtk

I am doing a PhD in molecular biology where we conduct research on human skin and skin diseases. Our group (EU based) has been in a discussion with another research group from the USA, where we can factually show that our methods are 'better' and cleaner than theirs. Nevertheless, they keep publishing work where they don't even cite any of our papers. We noticed that our publications were rejected by journals where people from the USA group function as editor/reviewer as well. We are always open for discussion and collaboration because good science cannot be done alone.

Very curious how we should handle this problem.

Continue to publish your results in journals that will accept them. After a while people will be able to see for themselves whether the US group is ignoring your publications.

Consider a Europe based journal or even a native language one. It's not ideal--usually the American society core journals are the best. But there are some legacy good ones overseas also. At a certain point, it becomes more important to get your stuff out and not be blocked. I was tangentially involved in two specific instances related to this, where the publish abroad method was used successfully:

*Tiff between two very big natural scientists with the US one blocking French group. French ended up in a French language journal (not ideal, but important because it was a very hot area and they needed to get priority for a series of discoveries).

*American-born, but French-based economist who published some findings that made several US companies unhappy (statistical evidence of collusion). He made sure his book was printed in Europe.

If you are interested in the long game, having a record of your precedence will be helpful in three ways:

• First, it may act as a deterrent to the US group. You can ignore one or two significant recent findings and defend it as an honest mistake, but if there is a long trail of it, this is a big problem. It may reach a point they are unwilling to pass.




• Second, it makes it more likely the rest of the community notices.




• Third, when it does emerge, you'll only get the credit for the work you actually published first.

Notice there is not a particularly strong effect of where the record exists for any of these points. Letters to journals etc can all help.

In the short term if you're convinced this is deliberate on their part there is not a huge amount I am aware of that you can do. The journals and the institution the US group are connected with may be willing to apply pressure to the group on your behalf. However their is no guarantee of any of this as it's even if it's clear to you what's going on it's potentially difficult to see this as anything other than grey until someone close to the field is involved (especially if there is not a publication record...). Also if there is something, it will likely not be you directly doing any of this. If the rest of the group is aware, there's no much more for you to do.

This is unfortunate for you as this kind of thing can take a while to be resolved, which in an established position may not be so bad but for a PhD this could well be to late for important events. I am sorry you are in this situation.

An increasing number of journal offers the possibility to publish short articles of critical feedback, often called "letters to the editor" and generally published online.

An example that comes to mind is PNAS' Letters in which scientists can reply to articles, provide feedback, point to fundamental methodological errors etc.

If you have reason to assume that the competing teams' methods are flawed, this type of open comments may be a good way to (constructively) suggest that alternative techniques (such as yours) are more accurate?

we can factually show that our methods are 'better' and cleaner than theirs.

Your methods may be better, but if their methods are adequate to support the results they claim, they may have good reasons to continue using their methods. The equipment they use is cheaper. They already have the equipment for their method in their lab. They are more familiar with the analytical techniques related to their method. Etc.

Only if their methods are actually producing wrong results would their not using your method require a letter to the editor other public response.

Nevertheless, they keep publishing work where they don't even cite any of our papers.

If they don't use your method, it doesn't seem necessary to cite your papers with reference to methods.

If their results are contradictory to yours, then it could be out of line to present their results without discussing why they feel yours are in error. It also justifies publishing your results with a discussion of why your methods are an improvement, and makes your results more valuable as they overturn previously published ones.