If bacterial or fungal infection is suspected in an AS patient, serum procalcitonin level may

be useful for diagnosis. “
“Most of us have felt the pain of a manuscript or a research proposal being turned down by reviewers. We may also discover acceptance of a similar work for publication or funding of a ‘mirror image’ project by someone else giving us heartburn. In this era of information explosion with openly accessible literature, it may be possible that two different minds think similarly, though not exactly the same. Majority of the experts are also fair in their peer review process. But, can we exclude the existence Dasatinib of competing ideas and conflicting interests? In reality, this may be a utopian dream. Research funding and publications can make or break people and at times in a seemingly unfair manner. Let us take the example of negative studies. Exclusion of negative studies shows up only half the truth like one side of a coin. Yet, most reviewers and journals

are reluctant to accept negative studies. Similarly, novel ideas from new researchers may be looked down upon as something without credibility, only to harm science by discouraging budding scientists. No rationally thought out idea is stupid even if existing yardsticks of science do not prove it. Einstein had rightly said, ‘If we knew what we were doing,

it won’t be called research’. If all hypotheses are to be proven true, scientists have to strive to manufacture positive results. Such peer pressure may TSA HDAC clinical trial lead to occasionally encountered Methane monooxygenase misadventure manifesting as true miscarriage of science called ‘scientific fraud’. On the contrary, there exists the paradox of occasional rejection of high quality work by harsher peer review and acceptance of ‘not so in depth’ work by gentler peer review. As editors, we have the responsibility to balance these disparities and thereby ensuring good science seeing the light of day. Finally, the most serious anomaly in publication world is probably the so-called citation and the resultant impact factor creating monsters like elite club of select journals. Citations by self and friends’ circle as well as compulsions from reviewers to cite their work generate such numbers and ranks to a great extent.[1] One may also suspect pharmaceutical industry, publishing houses and other vested interests as contributors in this design, either directly or indirectly. Nobel laureate Randy Schekman had pointed out few ailments of the publishing world (of course after getting his Nobel prize and after publishing in what he called ‘luxury journals’) and subsequently Michael Eisen, co-founder of PLOS had re-emphasized the facts.