Much has been written about the peer review process and its flaws. Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal has stated that since peer-review doesn’t work, we shouldn’t do it
I have recently come across another example of the flaws in peer review. I reviewed a manuscript last year and identified what I believed to be technical problems and suggested at least major revision. The other two reviewers agreed; the three of us had homed in independently on the same technical issues.
Move forward a year and the paper is published in another (equally “prestigious”) journal, no changes.
So I will now amend my New Year resolution (still holding firm) from 2014 and 2015.
In addition to only reviewing for open access journals, I will from now on only review for journals where the review is open and published or where I am free to publish the review. That, at least, will avoid the ethical tension between participating in anonymous peer-review and then wanting to publish the critique when nothing has changed in the paper.
Why Groundhog day? This is not the first time I have had this experience.
Posted in Peer review, Science publishing, Scientific progress | Tagged Open Access, research, Research integrity, science, Science progress | Leave a Comment »
I went to a most useful talk this morning by Stephen Carlton (@LivUniOA) on the Univeristy repository. I had whinged about this as being nearly unusable, but then I jumped in on an early version.
The repository is now useable, though it is quirky. A few lessons from my efforts to update my entries.
Continue Reading »
Posted in Post publication peer review, Science publishing, Seminars | Tagged Open Access, REF, Research Excellence Framework, science | Leave a Comment »
Of nanoparticles, cells and polyanions
It is the end of semester 2 so it’s marking season. Since we double mark (a good thing), the final year research projects are marked by both supervisor and an assessor, a member of staff who is not involved in the project. One of the projects I marked was Gemma Carolan’s on “How do SmartFlares RNA detection probes reach the cytosol? Available are the PDF of report, and posts here and here.
I had a sense of déjà vu while reading the project – the clear endosomal location of the SmartFlares, regardless of the DNA sequences brought me back to the days when antisense was the technology of the future for medicine.
While evaluating new technology it is useful to go back and look at other high flying technology. The reality is that it takes decades before we know whether the promise (and hype) were justified; this is true for any hot topic from stem cells to nanoparticles and graphene.
Antisense effects can be mediated by RNAse H, an enzyme that specifically cleaves RNA-DNA duplexes and which protects our cells from RNA viruses. There are other mechanisms, e.g., interference with splicing or translation, but the RNAse-H mediated transcript degradation should be central to many antisense effects. There were many papers reporting specific effects (evidenced by differences between sense, antisense and scrambled oligonucleotides sequences). These certainly contributed to success of individuals and of institutions, e.g., in UK Research Assessment Exercise and grant awards.
Continue Reading »
Posted in Biochemistry, Chemistry, Fibroblast growth factor, Glycobiology, Nanotechnology, Scientific progress | Tagged antithrombin III, chondroitin sulfate, extracellular matrix, FGF, Fibroblast growth factor, glycosaminoglycans, heparan sulfate, heparin, imaging, Nanoparticle, Nanoparticles, Nanotechnology, polysaccharide, Science progress | Leave a Comment »
I am a fan of PubPeer, as it provides a forum for discussion between authors and the wider community, something I have discussed in a number of posts (two examples being here and here). Two days ago, My colleague Mike Cross came by my office, having just delivered a pile of exam scripts for second marking (it’s exam and marking season), asking if I had seen a comment on our paper on PubPeer. I had not – too many e-mails and too busy to look at incoming!
So I looked at the question, which relates to panels in two figures being identical in our paper on neuropilin-1 and vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA) – indeed they are labelled as being identical.
Continue Reading »
Posted in Biochemistry, Glycobiology, Imaging, Peer review, Post publication peer review, Research integrity | Tagged extracellular matrix, glycosaminoglycans, heparan sulfate, heparin, imaging, Research integrity, Science progress, VEGF | Leave a Comment »
Reading my colleagues’ papers, a key step in our evaluation of outputs, was very, very useful. I learned many new things and also understand the research across my Institute and indeed large parts of the Faculty much better. The University has yet to use this knowledge accumulated by its REF Wallahs – it would make sense for these people to inform research policy, they have read a lot of papers.
The Faculty Clinical Medicine subpanel meetings were fun – my colleagues on this panel are a great bunch to work with and their injection of humour into proceedings eased the pain. Continue Reading »
Posted in Science process, Scientific progress | Tagged REF, research, Research Excellence Framework, science, Science progress | Leave a Comment »
David Paramelle’s paper on using gold nanoparticles stoichiometrically functionalised with a peptide that recognises sphingolipids has just been published in Advanced Healthcare Materials (Publisher’s site; Pubmed)
The paper is the classic “Sunday afternoon” project, which arose through discussions with Rachel Kraut at NTU.
As ever, a lot more than Sunday afternoons ended up being put into the paper, because David had to develop some new approaches. Particularly nice was the purification of nanoparticles functionalised with the sphingomyelin-binding peptide (called “SBD”) from non-functionalised nanoparticles. This is a key step for the preparation of nanoparticles carrying just one functional peptide or group. Hitherto, we have happily had affinity tags as the functional group, which allows for affinity chromatography (examples here, here and here). Continue Reading »
Posted in Chemistry, Nanotechnology | Tagged Nanoparticle, Nanoparticles, Nanotechnology, neuroscience, Photothermal imaging | Leave a Comment »
Congratulations to Quentin Nunes, who today successfully defended his PhD today. His first paper from his thesis work was published in late 2013 in Pancreatology. This was an analysis, using public datasets of mRNA expression data, of the putative heparin-binding protein network in the healthy pancreas and in pancreatic digestive diseases. The latter part of his thesis work will be submitted for publication soon (watch this space!) and is a proteomics analysis of heparin-binding proteins in mouse pancreas and in a mouse model of acute pancreatitis.
Posted in Biochemistry, Glycobiology | Tagged extracellular matrix, glycosaminoglycans, heparan sulfate, heparin, PhD, polysaccharide | Leave a Comment »