11-14 Writing and Publishing Scientific Articles
Review 2
The purpose of this study was “to identify patients with Z cancer most likely to respond to inhibition of X or Y by examining X and Y gene expression in matched Z cancer and normal tissue samples.” [The hypothesis was so well written that the reviewer quoted it!] The study did that, and the paper is well written (except for the Introduction and Discussion, which are too long, as stated below). The description of the controversy on the role of Y gene expression in Z cancer is especially clear. The study’s large sample size and the inclusion of a wide variety of ethnic groups make this report a valuable addition to the field. [Compliments, but…] However, several points need to be addressed before I can recommend publication. [As usual, some changes are still required.]
Major comments:
1. Two different Y antibodies were used for the Western blots, and one detected one band and the other two bands. The authors should repeat the experiments using just the antibody that detected two bands. 2. The exclusion criteria for patient selection were not clear. Had the patients from the San Antonio hospitals received previous treatment? Listing the exclusion criteria in the text would make this clear. 3. Figure 3 should be removed, as it shows only negative results. The results should be described in the text in one sentence followed by “(data not shown).” 4. The percentage of tumor samples overexpressing X is similar to that reported in the literature, but the percentage overexpressing Y is much smaller. Is this because of the ethnic mix of the study sample? This needs to be addressed in the Discussion section. Will these differences affect possible clinical applications of this study? [The preceding 4 comments repeatedly tell the author what he or she “should” do. Reading that over and over can be depressing, but the reviewer has said exactly what needs to be changed to get the manuscript accepted for publication.]
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software