Helpful Vocabulary for Journal Reviewers
01.2.11 by Michelle Kienholz
both for communicating with editors and authors (or cut-throat Scrabble games).
Battology n. The continual reiteration of the same words or phrases in speech or writing. A battologer is one who battologizes.
Dyslogy n. Dispraise; uncomplimentary remarks. The opposite of “eulogy.”
Ergasiophobia n. Fear of, or aversion to, work; diffidence about tackling the job. [something you write to the editor when explaining your medical reason for not accepting a manuscript to review]
Fustian n. or a. Ridiculously pompous, bombastic, or inflated language. The essence of fustian is not the use of big or exotic words but the adoption of a declamatory style that is unsuited, by virtue of its high-flown and flowery imagery, or its grandiose delivery, to the purposes for which it is being employed.
Hebetate v. To grow dull or stupid. The verb can also be transitive, meaning to make someone else grow dull or stupid — a sense of which it is hard to conceive an example except perhaps for the action upon the mind of prolonged exposure to radio talk shows or poorly conceived manuscripts. The noun is hebetude.
Ignotum Per Ignotius n. An explanation which is even more obscure than the thing it purports to explain. Literally, “the unknown by the more unknown.” Can be unintended or intended.
Jargogle v. To befuddle or mess up.
Kalopsia n. A state in which things [data] appear more beautiful than they really are.
Murcid a. Slothful, shirking work or duty.
Nugacity n. Triviality, futility.
Otiant a. Idle or resting.
Pleionosis n. The exaggeration of one’s own importance.
Quisguous a. Perplexing, puzzling.
Renitency n. Reluctance or resistance.
Thrasonical a. Bragging and boasting.
Unthirlable a. Impenetrable.
Vecordious a. Crazy, senseless, lunatic.
Zoilism n. Carping, destructive criticism.
Plus some choice quotes to help you craft your own comments from reviewers for Environmental Microbiology (impact factor 4.909) in 2010 :
This paper is desperate. Please reject it completely and then block the author’s email ID so they can’t use the online system in future.
The biggest problem with this manuscript, which has nearly sucked the will to live out of me, is the terrible writing style.
The writing and data presentation are so bad that I had to leave work and go home early and then spend time to wonder what life is about.
I would suggest that EM is setting up a fund that pays for the red wine reviewers may need to digest manuscripts like this one.
Season’s Greetings! I apologise for my slow response but a roast goose prevented me from answering emails for a few days.
Always dear EMI takes care of its referees, providing them with entertainment for the holiday time in between Xmas and New Year. Plus the server shows, as usual, its inhuman nature and continues to send reminding messages. Well, between playing tennis on the Wii, eating and drinking, I found time and some strength of mind to do this work.
I suppose that I should be happy that I don’t have to spend a lot of time reviewing this dreadful paper; however I am depressed that people are performing such bad science.
I wonder if you and I do not have better things to do than help people who can’t help themselves.
… and 2009:
The peaceful atmosphere between Christmas and New Year was transiently disrupted by reading this manuscript.
You know there is something important there but the language is so inaccessible that you cannot make up your mind if they are trying to hide something or they actually think that is a good style of writing.
The finding is not novel and the solution induces despair.
… and 2008:
The Introduction and the Discussion sections are contradictory. I even believe that the Discussion may actually belong to another manuscript.
… and 2007:
The paper is full of wild speculation linked by a few random experiments.
My heart sinks when I have to review papers from this group as I know my response is most likely going to be as long as the paper.
Nothing really new and even this is badly done.
I nearly said reject. But then I recalled that I have a hangover and I am feeling grumpy.
For this crucial initial step, authors behaved like a cook who is in charge of preparing an ‘haute cuisine’ meal for the 40th wedding anniversary for 100 guests and consults the first cookbook for kiddies to get some idea.
… and 2006:
I would be glad to look at a revised manuscript, but please give me a few months to get over the current version!
I have taken out my earlier comment that the authors retake Chemistry 101, that is probably not allowable.
This was a possible candidate for the ‘worst use of statistics to substantiate a falsehood’ award.
?
Another ms bites the dust – I don’t think the corresponding author has read it.It is unusual to express the result before the aims.
I’m a bit worried that the proportion of papers rejected might correlate significantly with the review being carried out on sunny weekends. Time for a beer and BBQ.
Is there a chance you could send me any good papers, at least once in a while?
My rather severe recommendation is aimed not only at serving the journal and its readers but also at helping the authors to preserve their reputations.
These sentences are way long . . . even for German readers!
… and 2005:
It is early in the year, but difficult to imagine any paper overtaking this one for lack of imagination, logic, or data – it is beyond redemption.
A shoddy superficial study with essentially no microbiological content (other than that, it was OK).
The authors are quite creative in using different statistical approaches.
This is another one of those PCA-based studies. There are several chemical data from several sites. You do not have to think about them, you just feed them into your statistics program, and this will tell you what is important. Then you make an impressive number of clones and feed their RFLP patterns into your statistics program, and this will tell you what is important. Then you sequence all clones with unique RFLP patterns and make a big tree. Then you combine the data sets, and this will give a fantastic matrix for a discussion, where you explain every possible relation on six pages without subheadings.
The hypothesis that a toxicant induces change is not useful news.
Journal Comment Commentary
10.5.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Although I appreciated the humor with which Rick Trebino wrote about his effort to publish a comment, I also appreciate the underlying serious sentiments regarding the lack of scientific dialogue-debate in the scientific literature. My post last year about Rick’s tale of woe and intrigue generated a bit of discussion, and I thought it was time to revisit the issue of comments (or attempted comments) on journal articles to engage the scientific community.
I found a recent example in Cell instructive – both the comment itself and the manner in which article commentary is managed. Cell permits online comments, subject to Editor approval, but these are only posted on the journal page, not on ScienceDirect, Elsevier’s online full-text database through which most of their published material is accessed. One would think the best way to stimulate scientific discussion of an article would be to keep approved comments linked to the Websites through which most of the community will access the material.
For comparison, Science (AAAS) allows readers to submit E-letters in response to articles, and Nature invites comments directly, with no prior approval needed, though contributors must agree to the Community Guidelines. Nature also maintains a number of blogs, including Peer-to-Peer, which specifically solicits discussion about journal peer review.
Also, one would assume the involvement of the Editor in approving online comments would make them as rigorous yet more timely than printed letters. Cell does not indicate that comments will be held offline until the authors have had a chance to respond, but a recent case suggests otherwise.
In response to PcrA Helicase Dismantles RecA Filaments by Reeling in DNA in Uniform Steps by Park et al., Khan, Anand, and Leuba submitted a comment on August 23rd that was not displayed online until September 20th (simultaneously with author response). The Khan et al. comment focuses on science:
Dismantling of RecA filaments by PcrA was originally published in 2007 by our lab and collaborators
This paper from the Ha lab shows a “new” activity for the monomeric form of PcrA helicase at the ss/ds junction of DNA substrates. The authors show that PcrA helicase, which is bound to ss/ds junctions, can displace RecA under conditions in which PcrA helicase does not unwind the substrate. The thermophilic homolog of PcrA was used in these studies. Surprisingly, the authors of the current publication do not cite our paper published three years ago (Anand SP, Zheng H, Bianco PR, Leuba SH, Khan SA, J Bacteriol. 2007 Jun;189(12):4502-9. Epub 2007 Apr 20) which demonstrated the displacement of RecA from preformed RecA filaments by PcrA. Until the current publication from Ha and collaborators, our paper was the only one demonstrating the RecA displacement activity of PcrA. We had also presented our results at various international conferences, including the first Gordon Research Conference on Single Molecule Biology in 2006.Our biochemical experiments on PcrA were prompted by genetic studies in Bacillus subtilis from the Ehrlich lab that showed suppression of a pcrA knock-out by mutations in the recFOR genes (Petit MA, Ehrlich D. EMBO J. 2002 Jun 17;21(12):3137-47). In our paper, we also showed the inhibition of RecA-mediated DNA strand exchange by three different homologs of PcrA (Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus anthracis and Bacillus cereus). Moreover, using two different mutants of S. aureus PcrA, one of which was completely inactive for ATPase and helicase activities, we also showed that the ATPase and helicase activities are not required for the inhibition of RecA-mediated DNA strand exchange or for the displacement of RecA from either ssDNA or dsDNA. In addition, we showed that displacement of DNA-bound proteins by PcrA or its mutants was specific to RecA, as SSB or gp32 proteins were not displaced from the ssDNA. As a matter of record, ours was the first paper to show RecA displacement by PcrA using biochemical and spFRET-based assays. We believe that the broader implications of the mechanism reported by Park et al. in this publication would have been more thoroughly addressed in the context of our earlier findings.
The authors reply?
Apologies for our oversight
We thank Drs. Leuba, Khan and Anand for pointing out our failure to cite their 2007 paper in the Journal of Bacteriology. We apologize for this unfortunate oversight. Jeehae Park, Tim Lohman and Taekjip Ha
I am not sure a journal would print such an authors’ response.
In fact, the reply raises more questions than the comment. The authors couldn’t be bothered with a cursory literature search? (what about the reviewers?) A PubMed search for the Park et al. paper lists among its suggested Related Citations the earlier article by Anand et al. (and vice versa – search for the Anand paper, and Ha shows up as a Related Citation). Of course, the authors’ “unfortunate oversight” avoided the need to address the potential lack of novelty of their findings, which might have knocked their manuscript out of contention for Cell.
And, coincidentally, Ha was Vice Chair of the 2006 Single Molecule Gordon Research Conference at which the data by Anand et al. were presented.
So, Anand et al. data (biochemical & spFRET) presented at June 2006 Gordon Conference. Anand et al. paper received in March 2007 and accepted and published online in April (print publication in June). Park et al. paper submitted in December 2008, revised in February 2010, accepted in July 2010, and published in August 2010.
Aside from the authors’ economical reply and interesting chronology, there remain the unaddressed scientific issues raised … and the question of what journal article commentary is meant for, if not to launch thoughtful discussion of the underlying science.
2009 International Science & Engineering Visualization Challenge
02.19.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Woohoo! One of my favorite events of the year … the announcement of the NSF & Science International Science & Engineering Visualization Challenge winners.
The NSF maintains a nice Website for this annual competition, and this issue of Science covers the 2009 highlights. Categories include Illustration, Photography, non-interactive media, and interactive media.
Enjoy!
Nature Journal Editors are Well-Meaning and Insightful
02.18.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Or maybe, in light of today’s editorial, Nature’s Choices, inciteful. The editors:
offer an explanation of how we pick research papers for publication in Nature, focusing on a number of false impressions that we have become aware of in and beyond the research community.
Myths addressed include gaming impact factor, kowtowing to big names, using only a small clique of reviewers per discipline, and allowing a single spiteful reviewer to derail a submission. And, indeed, they do not at all mind admitting outright that:
… there were several occasions last year when all the referees were underwhelmed by a paper, yet we published it on the basis of our own estimation of its worth.
Hmm. Refreshing honesty, but one wonders the long-term outcome of these papers and whether reveiwers whose recommendations were ignored (particularly if there was consensus, unbeknownst to them, among the reviewers against publication) were inclined to accept more Nature manuscripts for review, having had their time, effort, and expertise discounted by an editor’s prerogative. The editorial explains that decisions on which papers to publish are made
on the basis of criteria such as the paper’s depth of mechanistic insight, or its value as a data resource or in enabling applications of an innovative technique.
Well, at least no tarot cards seem to be involved. In the end, they conclude:
Myths about journals will continue to proliferate. We can only attempt to ensure that the processes characterized above remain as robust and objective as possible, in our perpetual quest to deliver to our readers the best science that we can muster.
Perhaps continue with the transparency as part of your “attempt to ensure … as possible”? Perhaps remind readers of how you “become aware of” false impressions and channels through which concerns can be raised, such as your thoughtful but undersubscribed Peer-to-Peer blog?
Science Translational Medicine – Coming Soon to a Newstand Near You
09.28.09 by Michelle Kienholz
And what a shocker … the Chief Scientific Advisor is none other than the Great Zerhouni (Katrina Kelner is the Editor, aided by Senior Editor Kelly LaMarco and an Advisory Board).
So what does the newest AAAS journal, whose “mission is to chronicle the conversion of basic biomedical research into practical applications,” want to publish?
The journal’s editorial team is seeking a variety of research papers, reviews, commentaries and other article formats in the following areas: cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolism/diabetes/obesity, neuroscience/neurology/psychiatry, immunology/vaccines, infectious diseases, policy, behavior, bioengineering, physics, chemical genomics/drug discovery, imaging, applied physical sciences, medical nanotechnology, drug delivery, biomarkers, gene therapy/regenerative medicine, toxicology and pharmacokinetics, data mining, cell culture, animal and human studies, medical informatics, other interdisciplinary approaches to medicine.
Preference will be given to papers on humans, human tissue, and animal models with proven relevance to human diseases.
Hmmm. Did they leave anything out? We’ll soon see. The first issue of Science Translational Medicine (not to be confused with BMC’s open access Journal of Translational Medicine) is slated to go online on October 7th.
Of course, the Mission Statement & Purpose are pure GZ:
Mission statement: To promote human health by providing a forum for communication and cross-fertilization among basic, translational, and clinical research practitioners and trainees from all relevant established and emerging disciplines.
Purpose: A profound transition is required for the science of translational medicine. Despite 50 years of advances in our fundamental understanding of human biology and the emergence of powerful new technologies, the rapid transformation of this knowledge into effective health measures continues to elude biomedical scientists. This paradox illustrates the daunting complexity of the challenges faced by translational researchers as they apply the basic discoveries and experimental approaches of modern science to the alleviation of human disease. Studies in humans often highlight deep gaps in our fundamental understanding of biology, but the linkages back to basic research to fill these gaps have not been as effective as they could be. Clearly, creative experimental approaches, novel technologies and new ways of conducting scientific explorations at the interface of established and emerging disciplines are now required to an unprecedented degree if real progress is to be made. Nothing short of a true reinvention of the science of translational medicine is likely to suffice. To aid in this reinvention, Science and AAAS have created a new interdisciplinary journal, Science Translational Medicine.
AAAS also kindly defines translational medicine, including specific examples.
Okay folks, go forth and reinvent yourselves (and don’t forget about the National New Biology Initiative as you do so).
