Letters

In response to the challenge offered at the end of the article entitled, "Is Peer Review Broken?"1 I offer the following: Thirty years ago, I submitted a paper for publication that was rejected by one reviewer because the data contradicted other data. I was unaware of the other data and, in fact, that data had never been published. However, only one other person in the world could have produced such data. To overcome this impasse, a colleague suggested that I "visit" my reviewer to discuss mutual research interests and, in so doing, mention the difficulty that I was having publishing my work. The visit occurred, and the resolution was that I refer to the discrepancy between my published data and the reviewer's unpublished data in the discussion section of the paper.

I found it absurd then, and I find it absurd now to discuss someone's unpublished data in the discussion ...