Anderson S, Bankier AT, Barrell BG, de Bruijn MHL, CoulsonAR, Drouin J, Eperon IC, Nierlich DP, Roe BA, Sanger F et al: Sequence andorganization of the human mitochondrial genome. Nature 1981, 290(5806):457-465.
Gao and colleagues have analyzed publicly available PacBio data from RNA to reconstruct the mitochondrial transcriptome from the MCF7 human cell line. They compare the human sequence to their published mitochondrial transcriptome from insect and claim presence of novel genes MDL1 and MDL1AS encoded by the D-Loop.
While I feel analysis of the long reads from mitochondria can elucidate open questions in mitochondrial transcription, and addresses questions of interest to mitochondrial biologists, I do not feel this manuscript is yet ready for publication in any journal. 大家请看最后一句,他讲的是 I feel,都不敢说懂不懂,最后就说哪个期刊都不要给他发,可以想想 这个哥们已经快疯了,才说出这样的话,搞的编辑都不好意思了。我这人就不信邪,你能控所有期刊?
The manuscript could be substantially improved by a deeper understanding of the extensive literature in the field of human mitochondrial genomics and transcription. As is, their paper shows data that directly conflicts with well-established facts of human mitochondrial biology – without sufficient explanation of possible artefactual reasons for the discrepancies. Given the discrepancies with well-established knowledge in the field, it is difficult to evaluate their bold claims, which are not supported by extensive new evidence. 他讲的我的这些发现,与人类线粒体生物学基本知识相违背,也就是说,我很多基本的东西都不懂。
你既然说了,对于我们的大胆的claim无法评估,作为一个严谨的科研工作者,你应该说自己不懂,
或者没有这个能力,因此不给出任何有误导性的建议和评论。
2.The introduction fails to discuss the broad literature of mitochondrial transcription and the various methods that have been used to analyze and quantify transcription, including NanoString, qPCR, and many other methods. 他讲我们三代测序得到的结果与以往所有的方法都不同,废话,这不是放屁么
The paper they cite about this “controversy” is the 1981 original annotation of the molecule – which has since been studied by thousands of researchers. 他讲我们的发现与1981年以来成千上万的研究者发现的不同
审稿人二,暴露缺乏很多基本知识,我就不放了
审稿人三,看一眼,就不看了
Based on my initial reading of the paper, my recommendation would be to reject it. It makes some outrageous claims going against all the extensive data on mitochondrial gene expression published in literally hundreds of studies, yet has precious little to support these claims (and what it has seems deeply flawed).
"I do not feel this manuscript is yet ready for publication in any journal." 在同行评审意见中,这句话不是很过分。意思是说,此文现在不适合在任何刊物发表。言外之意是,需要做major修改,修改完善后,还是有可能发表的。审稿人并没有说,哪个期刊都不要发表此文。
博主回复(2016-12-3 03:44):I do not recommend I do not feel this manuscript is yet ready for 你那个人还算谦虚,他讲,从我个人而言我不会推荐他xxx;我这个太牛逼,他敢说 这个稿件怎么怎么样,你看看语气 一般都是 我窃认为,或者我个人怎么怎么样 老蔡,我的英文理解可是很厉害啊
老高的经历跟我一样一样的。不同的一点是,我都知道围堵我的是谁和围堵我的原因。 I do not recommend this paper for further review towards possible publication anywhere.
(1) The author seems not knowing much about the Kalman controllability and yet criticizing it with many wrong comments and arguments.
It is fundamentally wrong to say that...
It is not true that ... It is totally wrong to say that... It is wrong to say that... (2) It is very difficult to understand what the author what to say and how to follow him to read through the paper