One concern about creationists is that they do not publish in the peer-reviewed literature. A while back Jerry asked me for one of my rejection notices for one of my papers. Remember, practically no scientific paper is accepted the first time thru. Of my 50 publications, 2 have made it thru on the first try and that is a high rate.
The paper was originally entitled "A population of cells resident within embryonic and newborn rat skeletal muscleis capable of differentiating into fat, skeletal muscle, cartilage, and bone" submitted to the journal Wound Repair and Regeneration in 1994.
Reviewer #1: "The premise and promise of the studies reported in this manuscript are extremely interesting as are the implications for repair and regeneration. However, the data presented in this manuscript fail to demonstrate that the diverse phenotypes displayed arise from a single pluripotential stem cell population as the authors claim. In addition, the circumstances under which the diverse phenotypes emerge are not physiological. Accordingly, the conclusions of this communication appear to be premature and are not adequately supported by the data presented. Furthermore, the methods used in this study do not allow the conclusions drawn to be reached unambiguously. ... A single agent (dexamethasone) appears to be the sole inducer for all phenotypes displayed. The authors specifically underscore the ability of dexamethasone to stimulate expression of these same phenotypes in embryonic (not applicable to this study) and lineage committed cells (p. 13, paragraph 3, lines 1-3). Thus, it is unclear why the authors immediately conclude that the "most likely possibility is that dexamethasone is non-specifically stimulating ... differentiation" (lines 5-7 of the same paragraph) of these diverse phenotypes from a single pluripotent mesenchymal stem cell and summarily reject alternative explanations."
Look how specific that is. The reviewer cites the exact portion of the paper he has trouble with. There were other objections by reviewer #1 but another indication of just how specific reviewers can get is seen here:
"(4) Attention to detail:
(a) at 19 days gestation, the rat conceptus is a fetus, it has not been an embryo for several days (this should be corrected throughout);
Reviewer #2
"This is a straightforward report of an experiment that demonstrates the formation of multiple cell types from a population of mesenchymal cells isolated from muscle tissue of the late fetal and newborn rats. Except for the conclusion regarding bone formation, where the evidence is not unequivocal, I have no problems with the data obtained. My chief difficulty with this manuscript is the author's use of the term "stem cells". Despite their having demonstrated that in avian tissue, I don't feel they should use the term until they have demonstrated the phenonmenon on clonal cultures. If, however, they refer to a population of cells with the ability to differentiate into multiple phenotypes, I have no problem."
This reviewer had far fewer problems than Reviewer #1, which is why there are at least 2 reviewers.
The paper rejected in this form. The letter from the editor read:
"Thank you for the opportunity to reveiw your manuscript. Unfortunately, I must inform you that we will not be able to publish the manuscript as currently submitted. ... If you feel you can adequately address these concerns, then I would be willing to accept a revised manuscript for re-review."
That is exactly what we did. I argued against some of the comments from reviewer #1 as being incorrect, specifically his concern that the differentiation was not accoimplished using physiological means. I pointed out that we were interested in the differentiation potential of the cells, not how it actually happens in vivo. That was for later studies.
My letter read "We are re-submitting the manuscript originally entitled ... Since the original submission, we have done additional work which has caused us to alter the title to "A population of cells resident within embryonic and newborn rat skeletal muscle is capable of differentiating into multiple mesodermal phenotypes". Specific replies to the original reviewers are attached. "
The resubmission was accepted and was published as:
Lucas, P.A., Calcutt, A.F., Southerland, S.S., Wilson, A., Harvey,R. Warejcka, D., and Young, H.E. A population of cells resident within embryonic and newborn rat skeletal muscleis capable of differentiating into multiple mesodermal phenotypes. Wound Repair and Regeneration, 3:449-460, 1995.
This is how it works. When creationists claim that there is a conspiracy to reject their work, we quite rightly want to see the rejection letters and reviewers' comments.
BTW, the title was changed because we had two new phenotypes: smooth muscle cells and endothelial cells. We also had a new way to identify the bone nodules.
The paper was originally entitled "A population of cells resident within embryonic and newborn rat skeletal muscleis capable of differentiating into fat, skeletal muscle, cartilage, and bone" submitted to the journal Wound Repair and Regeneration in 1994.
Reviewer #1: "The premise and promise of the studies reported in this manuscript are extremely interesting as are the implications for repair and regeneration. However, the data presented in this manuscript fail to demonstrate that the diverse phenotypes displayed arise from a single pluripotential stem cell population as the authors claim. In addition, the circumstances under which the diverse phenotypes emerge are not physiological. Accordingly, the conclusions of this communication appear to be premature and are not adequately supported by the data presented. Furthermore, the methods used in this study do not allow the conclusions drawn to be reached unambiguously. ... A single agent (dexamethasone) appears to be the sole inducer for all phenotypes displayed. The authors specifically underscore the ability of dexamethasone to stimulate expression of these same phenotypes in embryonic (not applicable to this study) and lineage committed cells (p. 13, paragraph 3, lines 1-3). Thus, it is unclear why the authors immediately conclude that the "most likely possibility is that dexamethasone is non-specifically stimulating ... differentiation" (lines 5-7 of the same paragraph) of these diverse phenotypes from a single pluripotent mesenchymal stem cell and summarily reject alternative explanations."
Look how specific that is. The reviewer cites the exact portion of the paper he has trouble with. There were other objections by reviewer #1 but another indication of just how specific reviewers can get is seen here:
"(4) Attention to detail:
(a) at 19 days gestation, the rat conceptus is a fetus, it has not been an embryo for several days (this should be corrected throughout);
Reviewer #2
"This is a straightforward report of an experiment that demonstrates the formation of multiple cell types from a population of mesenchymal cells isolated from muscle tissue of the late fetal and newborn rats. Except for the conclusion regarding bone formation, where the evidence is not unequivocal, I have no problems with the data obtained. My chief difficulty with this manuscript is the author's use of the term "stem cells". Despite their having demonstrated that in avian tissue, I don't feel they should use the term until they have demonstrated the phenonmenon on clonal cultures. If, however, they refer to a population of cells with the ability to differentiate into multiple phenotypes, I have no problem."
This reviewer had far fewer problems than Reviewer #1, which is why there are at least 2 reviewers.
The paper rejected in this form. The letter from the editor read:
"Thank you for the opportunity to reveiw your manuscript. Unfortunately, I must inform you that we will not be able to publish the manuscript as currently submitted. ... If you feel you can adequately address these concerns, then I would be willing to accept a revised manuscript for re-review."
That is exactly what we did. I argued against some of the comments from reviewer #1 as being incorrect, specifically his concern that the differentiation was not accoimplished using physiological means. I pointed out that we were interested in the differentiation potential of the cells, not how it actually happens in vivo. That was for later studies.
My letter read "We are re-submitting the manuscript originally entitled ... Since the original submission, we have done additional work which has caused us to alter the title to "A population of cells resident within embryonic and newborn rat skeletal muscle is capable of differentiating into multiple mesodermal phenotypes". Specific replies to the original reviewers are attached. "
The resubmission was accepted and was published as:
Lucas, P.A., Calcutt, A.F., Southerland, S.S., Wilson, A., Harvey,R. Warejcka, D., and Young, H.E. A population of cells resident within embryonic and newborn rat skeletal muscleis capable of differentiating into multiple mesodermal phenotypes. Wound Repair and Regeneration, 3:449-460, 1995.
This is how it works. When creationists claim that there is a conspiracy to reject their work, we quite rightly want to see the rejection letters and reviewers' comments.
BTW, the title was changed because we had two new phenotypes: smooth muscle cells and endothelial cells. We also had a new way to identify the bone nodules.
