I agree entirely with Paul on this one. However, I think the "flow community" could do more with respect to educating the editors of other journals. How often do we still see "mean fluorescence intensity" data published in high scoring mainstream journals - the same journals also accept "FL1", "FL2" etc in legends? In many cases, manuscripts which rely almost exclusively on flow data to support the hypothesis, present results which any one of my first year postgrads could see was largely artefactual - often due to poor compensation,erroneous use of isotype controls or insufficient sample size. Is there any mileage in the ISAC board writing an open letter to editors-in chief of bio-medical journals suggesting a list of expert flow referees specifically for manuscripts which rely heavily upon flow data for their conclusions? There must be hundreds of "good" flowers out there who regularly teach on flow courses, write book chapters and submit flow-related manuscripts who would be prepared to be named on such a list. Dr Mark W Lowdell Senior Lecturer in Haematology / Head of Laboratory of Cellular Therapeutics RFUCMS T - 020 7830 2183 F - 020 7794 0645
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 19:01:44 EST