I am not an academic, so take my advice with a grain of salt, but I would simply reply that you cannot share data before publication, but they certainly can see the published data once it is public, and you could answer questions at that time.

Other than that, I don't see anything that implies retaliation. If I owned a product and people were potentially going to publish negative facts about it, I'd be asking for information, too. Not because I want a fight, but because it is simply good practice to understand people's concerns about your product, and have an opportunity to fix the problems.

> I would simply reply that you cannot share data before publication, but they certainly can see the published data once it is public

We did that. We only didn't respond to the request to meet in person. Sorry if I was unclear.

> I'd be asking for information, too. Not because I want a fight, but because it is simply good practice to understand people's concerns about your product, and have an opportunity to fix the problems.

Good point. Unfortunately, we don't really know _why_ the product doesn't work. We only know that statistically speaking, we have low quality evidence that the impact on tested outcomes is negative. So fixing things won't be easy at all.

Also understand that if the company comes under heat, the VP has "protected" him/herself by trying to reconcile it.

There's some weirdness going on. Please consider asking the mods to disassociate/delete this thread since you're tipping your hand too much and risking your own career and that of your colleagues ('low confidence in the evidence'). Based on your earlier submissions, there might be some superficial semblance of a conflict of interest (this is only my guesswork FWIW).

Your posts are definitely not anonymous.

Thank you for your input. To clarify, we don't accuse the company of anything. We just got caught with our pants down because we have no experience in communicating with the industry and currently have nobody to guide us since our boss is against taking legal advice. So currently, we're just seeking a way to anticipate bad stuff that we know sometimes happens and communicate effectively without making stupid blunders.

'low confidence in the evidence' is a formulation sanctioned by best practice guidelines and has the very precise meaning that our results might be false positives, not a subjective appreciation on our side. This formulation is in the manuscript as well.

Also, I know I am easily identifiable but I don't think we're treading on forbidden ground here. Especially since I never posted on the internet about our current research topic.

It's not an answer to your question but what's the reason for not sharing the data?

This would've required us to state it in the manuscript and would've reflected badly on our research (readers would've been suspicious)

Why aren’t you sharing the data publicly? That would inspire confidence by readers.

Yes, indeed and we'll probably do that after publication. It probably also opens us to accusations of mishandled data / bad interpretation by the company, though?

>It probably also opens us to accusations of mishandled data / bad interpretation by the company, though?

Isn't that how science works? I also don't think they're called accusations.

You work with data and you state something based on that data. Someone else may point out that some steps of the process are flawed, or the data is flawed. That's the very nature of this.

Depends on who makes the claim, I guess. We are absolutely not afraid of scientific reviews. We're afraid of potential legal reviews made in bad faith. A company doesn't have to win a legal case to win against researchers, they just have to make a fuss.

I see. Is this common in your area of research?

It's not common, although a group was sued by a company this year. So we'd like to anticipate, just in case.

Not just the company, but other researchers and peers as well. This seems kinda like the point of including it with the publication, doesn't it? What's the value of the study of it can't be evaluated or peer-reviewed with the data present?

In my field, most studies are peer-reviewed without review of the data itself. The study was conducted strictly according to best practices guidelines, so we are not afraid of peer review. We are afraid of the suits coming in and making a fuss because they're big and have big money while we're small and penniless.

Protect from what? Do they pay you? Do they serve on academic committees?

They don't pay us. We are independent researchers affiliated to a teaching hospital. We never interacted with the company other than about our publication.

Can you be more clear about your position? Are doing research for a company?

The title suggest that you're academics but then you say that you aren't:

> how can academics protect themselves?

> do not hold academic/teaching positions.

Which one is it?

Yes, sorry I had to edit the title because it was too long, resulting in this confusion.

The authors are all staff at a teaching hospital, but do not hold teaching/academic positions and are not affiliated to the local university. Our boss is tenured, but is not an author and apparently doesn't care very much about this story.