Submited on: 26 Feb 2012 10:23:37 PM GMT
Published on: 27 Feb 2012 07:00:53 AM GMT
 
Insufficient information
Posted by Dr. Colin Anderson on 16 May 2012 08:02:45 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? No
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? No
  • Other Comments:

    While I am an immunologist, I am not an expert in the area of this paper. However, a paper should be generally understandable for those not directly in the field. This paper is far too cryptic to be comprehensible. It is full of errors in English, sentence structure etc.  It is not at all clear what is really being tested or how the tests fit with current literature.  The paper should be substantially lengthened (particularly the introduction) so that each concept is explained fully and the study is fully justified. Of the few references in the reference list, several are not cited in the text.  There may be work of substantial value present in the article but it is obscured by the errors and crypticity of the writing.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    General immunology experience.

  • How to cite:  Anderson C .Insufficient information[Review of the article 'Relationship between the T-cell Diversity and the Defence Polymorphism among Classical Populational Morphs and their Interbreeding Town-village Hybrid Offspring ' by Pehlivanov G].WebmedCentral 2012;3(5):WMCRW001822
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Partly
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? No
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? No
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? No
  • Other Comments:

    This manuscript has no clear, guiding hypothesis, lacks an identifiable relationship to current concepts in immunoregulation and has severe methodological flaws, as detailed below. In addition, it contains numerous typos and incomplete or incorrect phrases, making it very difficult to follow. These issues are serious enough to prevent the reader to reach reliable conclusions on the basis of the data included, because we don't really understand what the authors wish to prove, so it is difficult to assess whether they have achieved their purpose.

     

    There is no clear hypothesis and no relationship to current concepts in immunoregulation: It is very hard to define what this is about. As far as I could see, it is a paper where issues related to human populations in Bulgaria, with a stated focus on the presence and activity of immunoregulatory lymphocyte subsets, are addressed by an intradermal injection protocol involving paired injections of phytohemagglutinin (PHA) alone or associated with histamine. The issues involve the relationship of the human subjects to their urban or country environment, as roughly delineated by classification of the subjects (all males, all sailors) among "hereditary town dwellers" and similarly termed classes. I doubt whether such a design is appropriate by a study in Anthropology, Sociology or Human Geography, which are not within my field of expertise. It is inappropriate, however, in Immunology, where a lot more precise information about the study subjects must be provided if a human population is examined as to any parameter. Please note that space is not the limiting factor with the WebMedCentral format, therefore it is totally unexplained why we reader should know so little about the subjects and about how they happened to be classified as hereditary town dwellers or otherwise. Maybe this is easy to do in Bulgaria, due to constraints that are unknown elsewhere, but in Europe and the Americas it is not obvious that someone is a hereditary town or country dweller, as migration, exodus from rural areas, immigration and social mobility are important factors. Most importantly, I am not aware of any study or model connecting town or country residence (as rigorously established, which is not the case here) and a clear hypothesis as to how many regulatory cells exist and how they should perform in this particular skin test. It is striking that immunological concepts based on quite incompatible views of immunoregulatory lymphocytes (such as the putting together of hypotheses involving both Suppressor T cells and Regulatory T cells) are advanced as explanations, as if the authors did not consider this incongruence important. In my view, this might easily suggest to the reader that they don't really know about, or care about, the difference between different models. While they are obviously free to do so, this does nothing to promote acceptance of their study, which does not meet the criteria acceptable in this field.

    I have an even stronger reservation against using something as complex and variable as a skin test to draw conclusions on large scale human populations, without taking into account the miriad factors that influence the immune competence of human subjects (age, sex, nutritional status, exposure to infections and pollutants, occupational diseases, pregnancy, exposure to drugs, both therapeutic and illicit, and stress, to name just the obvious ones).

     

    The style deserves some consideration, as well. At some steps, the language used even borders on the nonscientific and/or ideological terminology, which is evidently not acceptable in an immunological report. It certainly contains a lot of unwarranted assumptions and hasty conclusions, as well as a general tendency to ignore the possibility that some aspect of the study might not be as positive as the authors thought at its inception. 

     

    While I would welcome to review a modified version of this report, in which its positive aspects would be easier to discern, I remain for the present strongly critical of its entire contents, and would strongly advise the authors to improve it by presenting a clear, articulated hypothesis, with the necessary subject information, supported by a really updated survey of the international literature, and free of ideological assumptions. It would be better for the authors as well as the readers.

     

     

  • Competing interests:
    None at all
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    Am J Pathol 1985, 120, 380-390; Braz J Med Biol Res 38, 171-183, 2005; Journal of immunology, 136, 3829-3838; Clin. exp. Immunol. (1987) 70, 484-490; Azevedo et al., Human Immunol., in press.
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have carried out immunological research in human subjects, and am familiar with some of the literature in immunoregulation. 

  • How to cite:  Xavier-Elsas P .A human study requiring a clear definition of hypotheses and models[Review of the article 'Relationship between the T-cell Diversity and the Defence Polymorphism among Classical Populational Morphs and their Interbreeding Town-village Hybrid Offspring ' by Pehlivanov G].WebmedCentral 2012;3(4):WMCRW001719
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    1. There are typographical errors.

     

    2. The table should be self-explanatory without having to consult the text. Put the foot, the meaning of the abbreviations.


    3. References should be updated, it takes from 2010-12.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    I have experience in molecular diagnostics, in particular SNPs.
  • How to cite:  Garcia G .Relationship between the T-cell Diversity and the Defence Polymorphism among Clasical Populational Morphs and their interbreedingTown-village Hybrid Offspring. [Review of the article 'Relationship between the T-cell Diversity and the Defence Polymorphism among Classical Populational Morphs and their Interbreeding Town-village Hybrid Offspring ' by Pehlivanov G].WebmedCentral 2012;3(3):WMCRW001532
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse