面对学术争议,质疑者,编委,审稿人,作者应如何规范处理

2016-10-17 13:37 来源: 生物谷
收藏到BLOG

  本文作者:同济大学医学院,上海市肺科医院 周大鹏教授

  2007 年8月,糖免疫学的权威专家之一,墨尔本大学外科系的 Mauro Sandrin 教授,在Immunology and Cell Biology发表了一个检测 iGb3抗原的单克隆抗体,15.101 。iGb3 抗原是介导免疫排斥反应的活性抗原,所以这个抗体被认为有很大的诊断价值。

  不幸的是,我们组通过质谱分析很快发现,Sandrin 组在用 15.101 抗体进行细胞染色时,识别的抗原不是 iGb3,而是一些相关的有交叉反应性的糖脂抗原。而15.101 抗体的抗原特异性,也并非文章结论部分所推断的那样特异。我们和另一个专攻糖生物学的Steven Levery 课题组交流了这些数据后,决定向 Immunology and Cell Biology 提出质疑。我和Steven Levery 教授总结了我们的实验结果,把质谱图和我们的质疑投稿到了主编 Chris Parish 邮箱。

  Chris Parish 教授立即回信,

  以下是引用片段:

  Dear Dr Zhou,

  Thanks for your email regarding the manuscript by Milland et al that was recently published in ICB. The ICB policy regarding refutations is below:

  'We recognize our responsibility to correct errors that we have previously published. Our policy is to consider refutations (readers' criticisms) of primary research papers, and to publish them (in concise form) if and only if the author provides good evidence that an important claim or claims in the original paper were incorrect. Refutations are peer-reviewed, and where possible they are sent to at least one of the referees who reviewed the original paper. A copy is usually also sent to the corresponding author of the original paper for signed comments. Refutations are typically published in the 'Correspondence' section of Immunology and Cell Biology, sometimes with a brief response from the original authors. Some submitted refutations are eventually published as retractions by the paper's authors. In both cases, the published refutation or retraction is linked online to the original paper, and the published paper is linked online to the refutation or retraction.'

  Based on the above I will be sending out your refutation manuscript for peer review and will also contact the corresponding author of the manuscript for comments.

  Regards,

  Chris Parish

  Editor-in-Chief

  Immunology and Cell Biology

  Chris Parish 教授回信后,按照期刊政策规范,把我们的质疑投稿送给了 Sandrin 文章的审稿人,进行了 peer review 后予以发表。Parish 教授也通知了原作者Sandrin 本人,转告我们对15.101抗体的特异性的质疑。

  在我们投稿质疑到发表的过程中,杂志编委,审稿人,原文章作者,都遵守了职业规范,关键是双方数据都得到发表,抗体的特异性用数据来验证。

  学术争论是推动科学进展的主要动力,科学期刊设计的规则有益于科学的健康发展,相信我国科学家会越来越多的以规范化的投稿参与国际学术难题的讨论,享受科学发现的喜悦。

本文来源: 生物谷    
qrcode http://m.antpedia.com/news/1361065.html
扫描二维码,在手机上查看和分享:
http://m.antpedia.com/news/1361065.html

我来说两句

验证: seccode