Some weeks ago I was asked to review this paper and at first I said yes, thinking that it was important to turn papers around quickly, I did the review within a coule of hours and sent it back to the Editor. However, I said I didn’t want to take any further part in the review process.
So my review was thrown away and never got sent to the authors…..and they got other reviewers to play their game. Therefore, it is it last time I offer to do anything for Frontiers journals. It can take hours to review a paper
The Frontiers stable is bordering on a predictory journal as it is an open access journal. They want you to get your mates and others to publish in special issues and then pay them for the pleasure. However, their refereeing process is something that turns me off.
You do the review and if you think it is OK to publish you go into a process of dialogue between authors and reviewers and you all get credited. It looks like ProfG did this one. This backward and forward can be a right pain in the bum and my experience has been a tedious one, it you don’t agree with the authors on everything. The referee can push their views on the authors and allows them to get their H factor up as you get the author to cite your work. Sure it can make the paper a better paper but if you do a good job reviewing the paper you can do this anyway.
Now why did I not want to review this paper. Because if we got in the too and frow paper I felt I would be pushing the authors to talk about stuff that I thought was important, which that hadn’t picked. So rather than re-write their article I thought I would simply write my own. The sad thing is that our article was online and on pubmed before this one, despite being written after this. Do I feel bad….No…I reviewed it is good faith and did it very quickly so no time was lost. I was also postivie and constructive. Did I steal any of their ideas? Well no because I though a differnt approach was the way to go. Have a read and compare my effort.
Implications of COVID-19 Outbreak on Immune Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis Patients-Lessons Learned From SARS and MERS.Möhn N, Pul R, Kleinschnitz C, Prüss H, Witte T, Stangel M, Skripuletz T.Front Immunol. 2020 May 12;11:1059. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01059. eCollection 2020.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic keeps the world in suspense. In addition to the fundamental challenges for the health care system, the individual departments must decide how to deal with patients at risk. Neurologists are confronted with the question, how they should advise their patients regarding immunosuppressive treatment. In particular, the large number of different disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in the treatment of neuroimmunological diseases such as multiple sclerosis poses a challenge. To a limited extent, it might be useful to transfer knowledge from previous SARS- and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus outbreaks in 2002/2003 and 2012 to the current situation. Overall, immunosuppressive therapy does neither seem to have a major impact on infection with SARS- and MERS-CoV nor does it seem to lead to a severe disease course in many cases. Considering the immunological responses against infections with novel coronaviruses in humans, interferons, glatiramer acetate, and teriflunomide appear to be safe. As lymphopenia seems to be associated with a more severe disease course, all DMTs causing lymphopenia, such as cladribine, alemtuzumab, and dimethyl fumarate, need to be reviewed more thoroughly. As they are, in general, associated with a higher risk of infection, depleting anti-CD20 antibodies may be problematic drugs. However, it has to be differentiated between the depletion phase and the phase of immune reconstitution. In summary, previous coronavirus outbreaks have not shown an increased risk for immunocompromised patients. Patients with severe neuroimmunological diseases should be kept from hasty discontinuation of immunotherapy.