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.
closeThe term "subject" in abstract is misleading
Posted by csrsanchez on 27 Oct 2011 at 08:20 GMT
Too bad the authors did not mention in the abstract or the article title that the stool samples were derived from rats. Instead, they used the term "subjects" in the abstract -- which makes one think of human subjects.
RE: The term "subject" in abstract is misleading
MattJHodgkinson replied to csrsanchez on 27 Oct 2011 at 10:31 GMT
While that would be indeed be a concern if true - we say in our author guidelines that "where appropriate authors should ensure the title contains information about the species or model system in which a study has been done (for biological papers) or type of study design (for clinical papers)" http://www.plosone.org/st... - the authors in fact state that they used stool samples from eight Finnish children (as described in http://www.nature.com/ism...), not rats.