This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content

(Circulation Research. 2003;92:124.)
© 2003 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorials

Suitability Criteria for Proteomics Manuscripts

The Editors

From the Editor in Chief and Associate Editors, Circulation Research.

Correspondence to Circulation Research Editorial Office, 2700 Lighthouse Point East, Suite 230, Baltimore, MD 21224. E-mail circulation.research{at}circresearch.com

Key Words: proteomics • proteins • novel mechanistic insight • physiological processes • complementary methods

In 2001 (Circ Res. 2001;89:469), we published a set of criteria that we would use to evaluate genomics manuscripts submitted to Circulation Research. These criteria have proven helpful to the Editors in establishing internal standards for suitability, and the publication of the criteria has alerted authors to the sort of work that is appropriate for submission to this journal.

A recent increase in the number of submissions of manuscripts that feature proteomics technology now prompts the Editors to state a set of general criteria to determine the suitability of such manuscripts for review and publication. To enter the review process, the minimal criteria are as follows:

1. Manuscripts should use proteomics to explore mechanisms, either of well-defined physiological processes or well-defined disease processes (or models thereof).
   
2. The principal findings must be reproducible, ie, confirmed using multiple sources and/or multiple experiments.
   
3. When appropriate to the question asked and the methodology used, the protein identification of the salient results of any proteomics screen must be by amino acid sequence, high-quality peptide mass fingerprinting, and/or Western blot analysis. Data used in identification must be included online. Differences in MW and/or pI of the observed proteins and those of the "identified" proteins should be accounted for.
   

For those manuscripts that do undergo peer review, additional considerations will include the following:

1. the novelty and general biological interest of the results.
   
2. an assessment of the relevance of the model system to the biological question.
   
3. an assessment of the appropriateness and complexity of the screen used to address the biological question.
   
4. the degree of novel mechanistic insight gained from the findings.
   
5. technical issues such as variability and statistical rigor in all aspects of proteomics analysis.
   

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content