|
Top Watch 3(1):22-25, 2008 |
OPEN DISPLAT |
|
http://im1.biz |
|
|
© Truthfinding
Cyberpress |
IPS PUBLICATION |
The
Fast Track for Publishing iPS Research
Shi V. Liu
Eagle Institute of
Molecular Medicine
SVL@logibio.com
(Received 2008-02-25; accepted
HIGHLIGHT
The
speed of publishing research reports on iPS cells has created some world
records that may be hard to beat. But
once the iPS “airplanes” go down people may ask why there was such hurry in
release those flawed “airplanes” into the therapeutic cloning “sky”?
ABSTRACT
Within one and half years,
at least 20 research reports have been published in various “top”
journals. Except for a relatively slow
start, the speed of publishing iPS research reports was extremely fast. Some papers were accepted within just two
weeks of submission and put online in about three weeks. Why would “top” journals rush in publishing
iPS research paper? Did they give these
papers the much needed scrutiny? Why all
these “top” journals would keep a tight suppression on criticisms on their
publications on iPS cells?
KEY WORDS
Stem cell, ES, iPS, Cloning,
Induction, Reprogramming, Regeneration, Hype, Spinning, Fast track, Publish
Since the publication of the first iPS research
paper in 2006 [1], at least 20 research
papers on iPS cells have been published so far (Table 1).
Although
there was a little “hesitance” in publishing the first research report on iPS
cells [1], once the barrier was
broken, the speed of publishing iPS research has become faster and faster,
especially for some selected research groups.
For examples, Yamanaka’s second iPS paper submitted
to Cell was accepted in 13 days and
published in 22 days. A few other iPS
researchers seemed also to have the capability of running the fast tracks in
publishing.
However, coming with this rush was also some
relaxing of scrutiny. As a matter of fact,
these “top” journals even did not care about doing a descent job because some
very obvious mistakes happened in the “high quality” journals [2-4].
More amazingly, the fast publication of iPS research reports was made while
these journals suppressed the publication of some strong criticisms (http://im1.biz/Cloning.htm).
Thus, once the hyping and misrepresentation is
realized by the mainstream, it would be a great shame that those “experts” could
not detect some obvious flaws in the iPS research. It would also be a great irony that the “top”
journals were at the bottom of publishing truth.
Table
1. A chronological list of experimental research reports on iPS cells
|
No |
Reference |
Group |
Received |
Revised |
Accepted |
Publish
online |
Publish in
print |
Accepted |
Published
** |
|
1 |
Takahashi 2006 [1] |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Cell 126:663,
2006 |
< |
~ |
|
2 |
Okita et al 2007 [5] |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Nature 448:313,
2007 |
~ |
~ |
|
3 |
Wernig et al 2007 [6] |
2 |
|
|
|
|
Nature 448:318,
2007 |
< |
~ |
|
4 |
Maherali et al 2007 [7] |
3 |
|
|
|
|
Cell Stem
Cell
1: 50, 2007 |
< |
~ |
|
5 |
Blelloch et al 2007 [8] |
4 |
NR |
NR |
NR |
NR |
Cell Stem
Cell
1: 245, 2007 |
NA |
NA |
|
6 |
Mann et al [9] |
9 |
NR |
NR |
NR |
NR |
Nature Method August 2007 page i |
NA |
NA |
|
7 |
Meissner et al [10] |
2 |
|
|
|
|
Nature Biotechnol. 25:1177,
2007 |
< |
~ |
|
8 |
Qin et al. |