Claudio, Mario is right, the challenge is to find papers where the Flow analysis is done properly and explained properly in the M and M and results. Too often a critical piece of information which would justify the author(s) intentions/interpretations is left out, leading to the reader thinking the author(s) need to go back to Flow 101. I believe part of the blame must lie on the shoulders of the editors/reviewers, who blindly read and accept both the data in the paper and/or the reviews, sometimes merely because one of the authors is well known in the field. Now, I know this may mean Mario having to review more papers, but it might also mean more people would have to critically review their information before submission. Randy T. Fischer NIH/NIAMS Building 10, Room 6D57 9000 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20892 (301) 594-3537 fischer1@mail.nih.gov > ---------- > From: Mario Roederer > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 9:27 PM > To: Cytometry Mailing List > Subject: Re: Bad flow cytometry papers needed > > Claudio: > > nearly every paper in the literature qualifies here... excepting those > written by people on this list, of course. Some years ago I was teaching > the flow course at Stanford and did exactly the same thing. I went to the > most recent issue of Nature Medicine, found the very first article that > used FACS, and gave it out. Turns out it had nearly everything one could > want from a paper. I told the students I would collect all of their > comments and send it to the author by EMail. I did so, with the preface > that this was not meant to be a criticism of the science, but merely to > point out that the FACS work was awful and misinterpreted. The author > took it in stride, saying first "that it was unusual to receive criticism > so soon after publication", but told me that the comments would be taken > in the spirit in which they were intended. Boy, I bet a postdoc or two > was roasted that night. > > Anyway, the challenge to your students should be to find a paper that > doesn't have flaws in its FACS analysis. > > mr > > At 4:40 PM +0200 10/12/01, Claudio Vallan wrote: > > Dear Flowers, > > I think part of the cytometry teaching would be easier if instead of > telling the students what they should do I would tell them what they > should > not do. (For some strange reason people tend to keep this better in > mind) > Unfortunately I have not many real life examples to show them. So I > wonder > if somebody knows some papers which I could put as bad examples. > (wrong > statistics, wrong compensation, wrong dies, misinterpreted data, > wrong > controls etc. etc.) > > It is very difficult making a Medline search using those terms :-) > > It would be great if I had some examples of mistakes that my > students would > not anymore need to do themselves. > > (Do not hesitate to mention your own papers as this may also be a > way to > increase your citation index :-) ) > > Perhaps you should send the references to me directly, so nobody > will get > too annoyed > > > Thank you in advance > > Claudio > > =================================================== > Claudio Vallan PhD Phone Lab: 031 / > 632 88 76 > FACS-LAB DKF Phone Office: 031 / 632 > 99 68 > University of Bern E-Mail: > vallan@dkf7.unibe.ch > c/o Institute of Pathology > Murtenstrasse 31 Insel hosptial area only: > 3010 Bern Beeper: 181 > 67 59 > Switzerland > =================================================== > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 19:01:34 EST