Report this comment

Nature 483, 531 - 533 (7391)
Published online: 2012-03-29; | doi:10.1038/483531a

Article: Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research

  1. #40720
    2012-03-29 10:50:33 AM
    Thomas Hanscheid said:

    Publication bias of preclinical and basic science in high ranking journals may well have more reasons, perhaps, often the lack of some useful and necessary clinical input. I am always astonished to see that many of my (highly regarded) research colleagues in malaria have never seen a case of malaria, never diagnosed one case, or possibly thought about all the implications of treatment. In fact, quite a few have never been in a malaria endemic country, let alone set foot into a hospital or health care post there. I want to believe that many of the reviewers of their submitted papers are not like this, but some doubts remain. I am not even so sure about the Editorial Boards of these high ranking life-science journals. Thus, highly elegant studies (often in ?models? of some form) presenting some impressive new mechanisms or new insight, usually based on cutting edge methodology in molecular biology, genetics or some intricate immunology pathways are written, edited and reviewed by ?peers?, in the literal sense of this word. I often wonder, if not quite a few of these scientific papers might look different (in a positive sense) if an experienced clinician/researcher would have also been involved (in the sense of being a ?slightly different? peer) in the publication process.

Your details

Reason for moderation

When you hit 'submit' a message will be delivered to the moderator of this site. You should receive an email about the outcome of your complaint within days. Thank you for helping us to maintain the quality of our site.

Only use this facility for serious complaints, not merely because you disagree with something.

Please confirm the words below

In order to reduce spamming, this process ensures you are a real person and not an automated program.

Extra navigation