Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeImpact
Posted by jbclam on 17 Jul 2012 at 14:11 GMT
I hate asking this question, but given the high level of publicity this work has received in the general media (thus raising so much hope in the general population), one has to ask: why is this a PlosONE paper and not a higher impact work? I cannot think of any one (especially from MIT) lightly sending what looks like a Nobel prize league work to PlosONE. I respect Plos One, but one usually send there good work that did not meet its public elsewhere. The reason is usually a series of controls asked by the reviewers that the authors declined doing. I am not suggesting everything should go into Science or Nature that have issues of their own, but I insist that we should know why apparently top work is making it there. In fact, I would be quite in favor of papers having universal identifiers, so that when they eventually get published one can read ALL the reservations reviewers had, across all submitted journals. For a paper like this one, this would certainly be instructive.