Showing posts with label reviewing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reviewing. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

What's new pussycat?

Unfortunately, not too much, but for some reason that song is stuck in my head like crazy. Even an hour of Radiohead couldn't get rid of it.

I finally finished reviewing that paper. (Thanks to everyone for suggestions.) We are recommending that the journal reject it. As it turns out the authors make a lot of statements about a particular protein (I'll call it protein 1) mediating a certain function, but showed no direct evidence for this. In fact, all the conclusions were drawn by comparing strain 1, which contains the gene encoding protein 1, with strain 2, a strain that does not contain protein 1. Unfortunately, the strains were not parent and isogenic mutant, they were just two unsequenced isolates. Aside from the presence or absence of this particular gene, there is no telling what other factors contributed to the differences in these strains abilities to function in this way. (One strain was awesome at it, the other was just OK.) Also, the authors made no attempt to show that protein 1 was even expressed in the conditions they were using, nor did they assess the ability of protein 1 to perform this function in vitro.
The worst part is that protein 1 is well-studied, there are parent and isogenic mutant strains lacking this gene, recombinant protein and monoclonal antibodies readily available. None of these tools were employed by the authors and as a result all that they demonstrated was that two different bacterial strains perform a particular function differently. Woohoo.

As far as the war with my cat goes, I think the balance is finally starting to tip in my favor.
First of all Sifo Dias, while still desperately trying to get into my closet at the ass-crack of dawn, has ceased trying to break the bedroom door down after being locked out. Now, all I have to do is get out of bed and shut the door, since he runs out of the room as soon as I sit up. As long as he doesn't start hiding in the room, I think I will make it.
Unfortunately my oldest cat, Shibba Dibba, has hyperthyroidism, so I need to take her to the cat radiologist where she gets injected with radio-labelled iodine. The worst part is that she must stay there until the level of radioactivity she is emitting fall below a specific level, which could take anywhere from 2-7 days. I hope it's only two days. I keep picturing her stuck in some lead cage all alone and it makes me sad. :(


Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Microbiologist XX reviews her first paper

While in graduate school I helped my PI review a couple of papers, but informally. This usually involved me reading the manuscript and then discussing my criticisms with her. What she did with them, I have no idea. Now, Magnum PI wants me to review a paper. He is going to review this one with me, but after that I am pretty much on my own.

He sent me the abstract of the paper today and from that alone I could find some obvious problems with the experiments. Another thing that was abundantly clear upon reading the abstract was that English is not the native language of the authors. In fact, some parts were so poorly written that I had to make assumptions about what the authors were saying. This brings me to my question:

How much does a reviewer get involved with the writing?

For my own papers, I've seen reviewers correct the random spelling or grammatical error, but I have a feeling this paper is going go way beyond this. If I am confronted with sentence after sentence of bad grammar and spelling, as in the abstract, what should I do? Where do you draw the line? The journalist in me wants to correct everything, but obviously I don't have time to rewrite a paper and that is probably not a reviewer’s job.

If there is a limit to how much spelling and grammar a reviewer should correct, does the quality or the science influence this limit?

Anyone care to put in his or her two cents on this one?