15 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2016
    1. the median review time at journals has grown from 85 days to >150 days during the past decade (5)

      This statement is a misunderstanding of Powell 2016, which states:

      At Nature, the median review time has grown from 85 days to just above 150 days over the past decade, according to Himmelstein's analysis.

      However,

      the median review time — the time between submission and acceptance of a paper — has hovered at around 100 days for more than 30 years.

      So while the median review time at Nature has gone from 85 to 150 days, this is not the case for all journals. See also the related Tweet.

    1. However, no nonsense or frameshif t mutations were identif ied, leading to the in ferenc e th at these var iants may be gain of fun ct ion and that this gain results in h igher leve ls of low-density l ipoprot ein cho leste rol (LDL-C)

      Just to be clear, the follow up studies contradicted this inference: loss of function reduces LDL levels? If so, I'd be more explicit that the inference turned out to be mistaken.

    2. An re cen

      Typo: a recent

    3. Himmelstein et al. (19)

      "Project Rephetio" may be a more precise way to refer to our study

    4. suggest druggable target

      Typo: missing a

    5. network-based strategy may seek t o target in te racting partners to achieve the desired outcome

      A good example here is the Network-based in silico drug efficacy screening study. I'd consider adding a paragraph on this study. This study falls into the comprehensive category you mention.

    6. 10.15363/THINKLAB.D107

      Any idea where this ALL CAPS DOI came from? I've reported this issue with DataCite and it's disheartening to see the issue potentially elsewhere. I'd love to know track down the source of the issue.

  2. Apr 2016
  3. Feb 2016