« Pfizer: Breaking Up Is Hard to Do |
Main
| A Look Inside the Compound Collections »
May 2, 2011
Great Moments in Journal Editing
Posted by Derek
I don't know if this DOI link resolves yet - or if the problem will be fixed by the time it does. But for now, in the "Articles in Press" queue over at Drug Discovery Today, they have one whose title reads like this:
Utility of protein structures in overcoming ADMET-related issues of drug-like compounds[1. AU: You use ADMET-relevant throughout manuscript. Would you like to change this to ADMET-relevant too?]
Well, would you? They're waiting for someone to answer them, apparently.
Comments (10)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Scientific Literature
POST A COMMENT
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Chemistry Software Questions Here
- › An Engineered Rhodium-Enzyme Catalyst
- › Chemistry Software Questions Answered Monday
- › More on That Crowdsourced CNS Research
- › Thanksgiving Synthesis
- › TauRx Goes Into Phase III For Alzheimer's
- › The Galaxy Is Full of Gunk
- › And Since We're Talking About Insider Trading
1. Hap on May 2, 2011 2:28 PM writes...
I vote yes.
Permalink to Comment2. HappyDog on May 2, 2011 2:52 PM writes...
I vote no. Just because the issues are related to ADMET doesn't necessarily mean that they are relevant to ADMET. Therefore, changing related to relevant could change the original intent of the author's meaning.
On the other hand, we could do an experiment to see how well people swallow 'relevant' versus 'related' (absorption?), or see if the difference between the two sinks in to the central nervous system (blood-brain barrier penetration), whether the knowledge is internalized (distributed), digested (metabolized), rejected (excretion), or just makes the reader vomit (toxicity).
Permalink to Comment3. TFox on May 2, 2011 2:57 PM writes...
There are a number of other queries to the authors in the PDF too. The one in the title is the most amusing, though, especially if someone were to follow literally the journal's recommendation for citing the article in press:
"Please cite this article as: Stoll, F., Göller, A.H., Hillisch, A., Utility of protein structures in overcoming ADMET-related issues of drug-like compounds[1. AU: You use ADMET-relevant throughout manuscript. Would you like to change this to ADMET- relevant too?], Drug Discovery Today (2010), doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2011.04.008"
Permalink to Comment4. Hap on May 2, 2011 2:59 PM writes...
But if "relevant" isn't what the author(s) meant, then why use it elsewhere in the manuscript?
The alternative, which might be better, would be to change the term to "ADMET-related issues" everywhere. I just would prefer the document to be consistent in using whatever term it's using.
Permalink to Comment5. Neil on May 3, 2011 5:32 AM writes...
The article is listed as 'article in press', which if you click through using the handy 'Note to users' you can see that articles in press may be "Uncorrected proofs: these are copy edited and formatted articles that are not yet finalized and that will be corrected by the authors. Therefore the text could change before final publication."
Sorry to spoil the fun.
Permalink to Comment6. scieditor on May 3, 2011 7:56 AM writes...
Ah, the perils of editing in the digital age. It used to be that authors could just ignore our queries. Now, everyone knows they ignored our queries.
Permalink to Comment7. andrewD on May 3, 2011 8:49 AM writes...
scieditor @6
Permalink to CommentYou knew it would be one of those days didn't you!
There is a typo in the URL attached to your name ("," in stead of">")
8. andrewD on May 3, 2011 8:53 AM writes...
and that will teach me not to preview , "." not">"
Permalink to Commenti shouldn't have tried to be funny
9. MLBpitcher_and_MedicinalChemist on May 3, 2011 9:19 AM writes...
You got arrested fora DUI Derek:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=6448504
Permalink to Comment10. Anonymous on May 3, 2011 11:36 AM writes...
This is all irrelated.
Permalink to Comment