August 25, 2021

The Journal of the American Chemical Society publishes an Article, titled “Mechanistic Insight into Copper-Mediated Trifluoromethylation of Aryl Halides: The Role of CuI” by Qilong Shen and co-workers.

Shortly afterwards, I read the Article and prepare a critique of the work.

November 30, 2021

I email my unsolicited report to Prof. Qilong Shen, the corresponding author of the paper, Prof. Erick M. Carreira, Editor-in-Chief of JACS (hereafter EiC), and a few Senior/Associate JACS Editors who I thought might have handled the manuscript and accepted it for publication.

December 3, 2021

EiC responds, thanking me for my “careful analysis and critique” of the Shen paper and suggesting that a “Comments/Response” be published, comprising my commentary on the article and the authors' response to it. EiC's suggestion does not make enough sense to me, given both the nature and the scale of the problem. I therefore share my concerns with EIC and come up with the following counterproposal (verbatim):

“Having earnestly considered your proposition to submit a Comments manuscript, I came to realize that I do not see how that would work. What you suggest would make perfect sense for a publication that contains an item of controversy, a contestable interpretation, a methodological error, etc. yet that is based on solid, properly done experimental work. As my review shows, this is not at all the case with Shen's paper. I appreciate how busy you are, but it would take you just a few minutes to read the 2nd paragraph on p. 7, the top paragraph on p. 13, and the X-ray section on p. 8 of my report to see that Shen's results cannot be trusted. And, these three items are evidently just a drop in the ocean. Shen's entire work is fundamentally flawed, which makes a discussion of his paper between him and me pointless.

“Given the above, I suggest that the Editor that handled and eventually accepted the manuscript as well as the Reviewers who recommended the paper for publication scrutinize my report. If they find my criticism fair, they have to take full responsibility for not having done their job and an appropriate action should be taken. In my opinion, only retraction could save your Journal's reputation in this particular case. However, it is obviously not me who decides on that.

“On the other hand, if the Editor and the Reviewers of Shen's manuscript find my report biased and unfair, there will be no need to take any action. If this is the case, however, it is incumbent on the Editor to communicate to me all of my mistakes and personal attacks that (s)he finds in my critique. Needless to say that, should particular fair criticism of my report be provided, I will certainly be willing to most sincerely apologize to Prof. Shen, you personally, the handling Editor, and the Reviewers for my wrongful review.

“Naturally, the Editor and the Reviewers should feel free to contact me with any questions they may have as they examine my critique.”

December 29, 2021

EiC forwards to me Prof. Shen’s response to my critique.

January 4, 2022

Having found Shen's response totally unsatisfactory, I prepare a rejoinder and send it to EiC.

[The document may be made available on request, subject to consideration of ethical and other factors.]

March 6, 2022

EiC emails me, saying “After several rounds of emails, including discussion with the referees, Prof. Shen has provided the attached correction. I welcome your comments in connection with it.”

March 15, 2022

Having found the new version of the correction as unsatisfactory, I email my comments on it to EiC. In my accompanying email, I write:

“The entire published paper is bad science that should never have been published in any scientific journal, let alone JACS. Unfortunately, there is no way to resolve the issue by publishing a correction, sorry. In fact, publishing the Correction you sent me is guaranteed to make things only considerably worse.”

[My evaluation report on the second version of the correction may be made available on request, subject to consideration of ethical and other factors.]

July 17, 2022

Having not heard from EiC for three months, I ask him for an update. In his reply, EiC informs me that, “… I would like to point out that I have engaged in a thorough process of evaluation. This includes consulting with the original referees as well as experts in the field. As a result of extensive exchanges please note that a retraction will not follow. Instead, there is a consensus for a correction to the original publication, which the authors have almost completed.”

To express my astonishment, I write back that, “I do not see how publishing a correction can resolve the issue, unless the entire article, the SI, and the CIF's are replaced with completely different new ones. As I have explained quite a number of times, the published paper is not fixable.” This time, however, EiC (conveniently?) omits to welcome my comments on the new version of the Correction.

August 4, 2022

The Correction is published.