首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling >Flaws in the peer-reviewing process : a critical look at a recent paper studying the role of CCN3 in renal cell carcinoma
【2h】

Flaws in the peer-reviewing process : a critical look at a recent paper studying the role of CCN3 in renal cell carcinoma

机译:同行评审过程中的缺陷:最近一篇研究CCN3在肾细胞癌中作用的论文的批判性观察

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

A critical look at a recently published manuscript reporting the role of CCN3 in the regulation of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) biology raises several scientific concerns, and reveals flaws in the reviewing process which appear to have resulted in the dissemination of conclusions that are not supported by proper experimental procedures. In the example presented here, the observed biological effects are attributed to a high molecular weight “CCN3” protein which is detected by a single commercial antibody that was not shown in the experimental conditions used by the authors to be a valid reagent capable of stringently detecting the “canonical” CCN3 protein. Experiments establishing that inhibiting the production of high molecular weight “CCN3” protein would reverse these biological effects were not performed. The case discussed here clearly demonstrates that unreliable data can go through peer reviewing and be published. As the data can end up being cited and used as a potential reference by new investigators in the field, we believe that such data can throw roadblocks across the scientific path of inquiry and mislead investigations. We therefore raise awareness for the need of a more stringent peer reviewing process in which assurance can be had that the strength and precision of the data have been thoroughly checked by experts in the CCN field, and previous work properly referenced.
机译:对最近发表的手稿的批判性观察报道了CCN3​​在透明细胞肾细胞癌(RCC)生物学调节中的作用引起了一些科学关注,并揭示了审查过程中的缺陷,这些缺陷似乎导致了结论的传播。没有适当的实验程序支持。在此处显示的示例中,观察到的生物学效应归因于高分子量“ CCN3”蛋白,该蛋白是由一种商业抗体检测到的,作者在实验条件下未将其检测为能够严格检测的有效试剂“规范”的CCN3蛋白。没有进行抑制高分子量“ CCN3”蛋白产生会逆转这些生物学效应的实验。这里讨论的案例清楚地表明,不可靠的数据可能会经过同行评审并被发布。由于该数据最终可能会被该领域的新研究人员引用并用作潜在参考,因此我们认为,此类数据可能会在科学的询问和误导性研究道路上造成障碍。因此,我们提高了对更严格的同行评审过程的必要性的认识,在此过程中,可以保证CCN领域的专家已经彻底检查了数据的强度和准确性,并正确地参考了以前的工作。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号