Recent Updates

Last post
Notes from the biomass will continue at nftb.net. My...
spitshine - 2006-07-16 13:11
Stubborn
OK, you got me. While technically not blogging at the...
spitshine - 2006-07-07 10:55
Greetings from another...
Greetings from another HBS-founder (media-ocean.de)....
freshjive - 2006-06-15 20:06
HBS manifesto will be...
Hi there! I am one of the hard blogging scientsts. We...
020200 - 2006-06-15 18:13
Latter posts - comment...
Things to do when you're not blogging: Taking care...
spitshine - 2006-04-29 18:46

About this blog

About content and author

A few posts of interest

The internet is changing... Powerpoint Karaoke
Quantifying the error...

Link target abbreviations

[de] - Target page is in German
[p] - Paywall - content might not be freely available
[s] - Subscription required
[w] - Wikipedia link
More...

Search

 

Archive

March 2006
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
 
 
 
 2 
 4 
 5 
 6 
 8 
 9 
11
12
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
 
 

Credits

More on high-profile papers on protein-protein interactions

The post on the interaction paper that I found peculiar due its stress on the "first analysis" received several comments by email and verbally. Several of them were rather disappointed with the paper in general and stressed that the body of interactions used for inferences was very small and that little novelty was described in general. However, I find nothing "wrong" with the paper and if the editors find it interesting, why shouldn't they publish it?

A similar paper by Zhong and Sternberg in Science this Friday might receive the same criticism - much of it has been seen previously in other organisms, there is little novelty in the methodology. The authors integrate transcription data and interaction data from several organisms and provide experimental evidence for their prediction. The approach is not different from strategies employed by in the String database (Disclaimer: done by my former lab) or work from Lee et al. that also appeared in Science and several others. One might want to comment on the lack of references but given the severe restrictions by the journals it is problematic to select the right ones.
Further in defense of it: The work by Zhong and Sternberg might not seem to be novel in the eyes of the pundits but it is probably of considerable interest for the C. elegans community.

Other memes that often go around with papers from your core expertise in prestigious journals: "This work should not be in Nature Genetics" and "I wonder how it got into Science". Maybe I am just getting older but I relax and think that if these works are accepted, my work has a better chance of getting published too. At the end of the day, good work is recognized in your field even if it is not published in Cell. There are just less people jealous people commenting - is that a bad thing?

Or as a collaborator recently put it: You can get away with publishing good work in mediocre journals but not publishing mediocre work. Focus on your work, not the impact factor accrued by other scientists.

[Note to self: Re-read every Friday until you really believe it]
Sean Eddy (guest) - 2006-03-11 15:57

I enjoy your blog, but I think you're being unfair on this one, Spitshine. The Zhong and Sternberg paper is about genetic interactions (not protein-protein interaction), and it's in a multicellular model system (not yeast). If you think it's not novel because the overall technique doesn't seem novel, I'd argue you're losing sight of the difference between progress in biology versus progress in methodology! I reviewed the Zhong paper, and as a computational biologist, my initial reaction to the methodology was much the same as yours -- but then I looked at the results harder, from the perspective of a worm geneticist, and my feelings were much different. I think it's a nice step forward.

spitshine - 2006-03-11 20:10

We might agree more on the subject than you might have understood from my post. I don't want to got through the text line by line if you allow (and promise to express myself more clearly from here on).

However, my reference to the C. elegans community might nicely map to your notion of the difference between methodology and biology. And I would agree that more worm geneticists would start to exploit the interactions available from the Zhong paper than from a web site that is not focussed on C. elegans.

There is no agreed standard on what signifies great scientific work - a clever idea, 10 person years of hard, targeted lab work, or a lucky finding? We could disqualify almost every work for lack of one or the other.

Thanks for speaking up.

Trackback URL:
https://binf.twoday.net/stories/1680766/modTrackback

Elsewhere...

Status

Online for 7131 days
Last update: 2006-07-16 13:11

Blogs
Conferences
Databases
Journals
Meta
Misc.
Papershow
Patents
PPI
Predictions
Publishing
The young PI
Useful tools
Profil
Logout
Subscribe Weblog