[ WP ] A mad scientist is trying to get his work peer reviewed , but his unorthodox lab practices are raising a few issues .

From: connors @ hudson.edu 
 To: editors @ biotechjournal.com 
 
 Subject: re: decision on manuscript 268901j 
 
 To the editors: 
 
 We thank you and the reviewers for the helpful comments regarding our manuscript `` DNA donation from Eumeces laticeps promotes limb regeneration in humans.'' While we acknowledge that the editors have final say in the decision to accept or reject a submission, would like to address some of the major criticisms brought up by the reviewers. 
 
 Reviewer 1: 
 
 We thank reviewer 1 for his assessment that the manuscript should be accepted with no further revisions. 
 
 Reviewer 2: 
 
 `` The title of the paper is somewhat misleading, as the vast majority of experiments were performed on murine models. Indeed, only one human subject was studied. Due to this extremely small sample size, I do n't believe the conclusion that the method may represent a general therapy for humans is justified.'' 
 
 We agree with reviewer 2's assessment, and are willing to remove the word `` humans'' from the paper title, along with scaling back our claims in the conclusions section. 
 
 `` It appears that no human subjects protocols were followed in this study, calling into question whether or not it violates ethical grounds. Furthermore, side effects of the treatment were not addressed, and no follow-up regarding the subject's physical condition was reported.'' 
 
 While we admit that no human subjects protocol was submitted, we do not believe any breach of ethics occurred. Suffice to say that the subject was extremely well informed regarding the procedure. Additionally, we believe that any follow-ups regarding the subject's condition subsequent to the treatment are beyond the scope of this work. 
 
 Reviewer 3: 
 
 `` This study is completely insane and so are the authors.'' 
 
 In general, we found reviewer 3's remarks to be unprofessional and inconsistent with the spirit of peer review. 
 
 `` There is no way that you can combine mouse and lizard genomes as described in this work. What is the result, some sort of mouse-lizard hybrid? That's about as plausible as a human-arachnid hybrid.'' 
 
 We refer reviewer 3 to the whole genome sequencing provided in the supplementary information. 
 
 `` Additionally, the timescale given for limb regrowth is completely unrealistic. One does not regenerate a new appendage in a matter of days. I suggest that this paper be completely discounted as fraudulent and its authors seriously considered for psychiatric evaluation.'' 
 
 If reviewer 3 truly doubts the validity of this study, I kindly suggest that a demonstration of the newly grown limb ( s ) be arranged at his or her convenience. 
 
 
 As you can see, we strongly believe that the far-reaching implications of our work for the field of medicine make it ideally suited for a journal with the wide scope and readership of Biotechnology Journal. We hope that a favorable decision can be reached. Thank you for your consideration. 
 
 Sincerely, 
 
 Dr. C. Connors
