 |
 |
 |
 |
------------------- REVIEW.CYT follows --------------------
Dear Collegues,
This letter is to discuss with you the issue of review articles
in CYTOMETRY. As Editor of Reviews in CYTOMETRY, I have already
approached many collegues with personal letters, inviting them to sumbit
a review on particular subject. I had several promises but, as you
noticed from the paucity of review aricles in the journal, the promised
manuscripts did not yet materialize. I am taking, therefore, this step
to extent the invitation to everyone who is interested and willing to
prepare such a review.
There is a definite need to have periodical reviews of the
progress in development of new methodologies and on their applications.
With the explosive growth of the discipline (cytometry), many newcomers
are often at a loss to find the most optimal method to use for their
particular purpose. Any novice in the field certainly has a problem in
distinguishing the papers that use cytometry correctly from,
unfortunately still numerous papers, in which the technique is used with
little understanding not only of the nuances but often also the
principles. Furthermore, even for experts in cytometry, it is difficult
to follow developments in all areas outside their immmediate interest.
The great popularity of the review chapters published in the
monographs edited by Melamed et al., (Flow Cytometry and Sorting), Bauer
et al., (Clinical Cytometry) or Laerum and Bjerkens (Flow Cytometry in
Hematology) is the best indication of such a need. A large majority of
chapters presented in these books are of excellent quality, covering a
wide spectrum of methodologies, primarily with respect of their
development and applications, up till 1990-1992. There is one drawback
of these monographs, however, which is related to the nature of their
preparation. Generally, to complete the collection of the chapters
appearing in these books, the editors had to wait for submission of the
latest chapter. From my own experience, I know that this may occur a
year, or sometimes two years after the submission of the first chapters,
by the authors who were prompt and complied with the original deadline.
These authors, actually, are the victims, punished for their promptess,
by seeing their articles already outdated the moment are were published.
Alternatively, they are forced to revise and update the manuscripts a
year or two after their original submission. The explosively growing
field of cytometry requires a more rapid publication of review articles.
Considering the above, after consultations with the
Editor-in-Chief of CYTOMETRY and the ISAC Publication Committee, I would
like to initiate a series of a new type of reviews, namely invited
Critical Reviews. I envisage the reviews to be 3-5 pages long, focused
on the most recent advances. One may assume that the information
provided in the review chapters in the monographs mentioned above in
this letter are available to most researchers in the field of cytometry,
and therefore these chapters may serve as the starting point and contain
the backround information not to be repeated in the Critical Reviews.
The Critical Reviews should not be exhaustive in terms of
covering a maximum number of papers published most recently, but rather
be focused on the most important publications, the publications
considered by the authors to have major impact in a particular field.
The author of such a review should consider comparing methods presented
in the reviewed original articles with other similar techniques, briefly
addressing the issues of their applicability, advantages and
limitations. The later point is often neglected by the authors of the
original papers, who may have, understandably, somewhat biased
perspective. The critical review is expected to contain an opinion of an
experienced researcher, who may suggest the applicability of a given
method or its modification to a particular cell system or to clinical
material, and, when possible, may add a note on her (his) experience
with a particular technique that is being reviewed. This may help a
novice, who otherwise may be at a loss reading many publications, to
select the most appriopriate method for a particular task. Also valuable
will be the opinion of the author(s) concerning the future of the
methodology, both with respect of its technical modifications as well as
appliacability to cell systems other than those covered by the original
authors. I envisage the format of these reviews to be somewhat similar
to that of the articles published in Trends journals e.g. in Trends in
Biotechnology, (TIBS).
It may be advisable to expand the review to include another
field that may be relevant to the subject, e.g. to describe the most
recent development at the cellular, or molecular biology level, or in a
clinical area, pertinent to the described methodology. The authors,
therefore, are encouraged to invite a collegue(s), having expertise in
these fields, as a co-author(s). Such articles are expected to have a
wider audience by attracting disciplines that use cytometry as a tool
(not always correctly or at its full potential) and users who frequently
are not aware of the possibilities or more optimal applications of this
methodology, in their respective fields.
The articles will be peer-reviewed, and the reviewers will be
asked to offer constructive criticism, e.g. by providing suggestions
regarding inclusion of some overlooked topics, papers, etc. I promise,
however, that the review will be rapid (two weeks). The Editor-in-Chief
had agreed that the Critical Reviews articles will have the accelerated
publication tract, in terms of sending them to the Publisher as soon as
the revised version is in the Editors Office, i.e. with different
priority than that of the regular articles.
I believe that short, critical and autoritative reviews prepared
by the experts, dealing with the topics of relevance, will best serve
the need of the scientific community, by continuous updating of the
recent progress in these methodologies and applications.
The person(s) willing to prepare the review article should
contact me, providing: (1) a short outline of the topics to be covered
in the review, and (2) the projected time of its delivery. This step is
essential to exclude a possible overlap with other authors and proper
scheduling.
I would also like to know your preference regarding topics you
wish to be reviewed. Please post your ideas on the e-mail board or, if
you prefer, let me know personally.
I will be looking forward for your comments and for the submisions,
Sincerely,
Zbigniew Darzynkiewicz
|
|
|
|