Submited on: 03 Sep 2012 04:28:31 PM GMT
Published on: 03 Sep 2012 06:37:22 PM GMT
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The author claims that there exists a new force which he terms 'self-gravity' that underlies self organisation


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The effects of gravity on biological systems are well known and it is difficult to see why self-gravity is a new concept. However, the author claims that this is a novel way of describing the cause of self organisation


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    There is a lot of unnecessary and superfluous discussion. Many areas need to be omitted as these do not add to the paper


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    It is true that we need to describe the causes of self organisation but these are not merely based on gravity alone. Other chemico-physical forces are involved also.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    A full and detailed mathematical description of this force is needed


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    It is an attempt to described the cause of complexity and self organisation but there is a blurring of the line between exiting gravitational descriptions and the putative 'self-gravity' hypothesis.


  • Other Comments:

    It is not necessary to describe the force as 'invisible'. All forces are invisible.

    The paper needs to be significantly edited for grammar and spelling, as it is difficult to follow the author's reasoning. I was invited by the author to review this paper.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have experience in biology, health, complex systems and self-organisation in nature

  • How to cite:  Kyriazis M .The Concept of Self-gravity in Biological Systems[Review of the article 'Invisible Force of Self Gravity: A Gap Area of Investigation in Life Science ' by Bhattacharjee I].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Invisible results about Self Gravity
Posted by Dr. Massimiliano Zanin on 02 Oct 2012 02:49:50 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Self-gravity is claimed to be the main force behind the appearance of self-organized structures.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    NA


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Negative. Clearly, the author is not aware of the many studies and results within physics, and specifically in the field of self-organizing systems; I suggest him to have a look at these fields before posting an unsubstantial paper.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No result is provided, just a collection of facts and ideas that have no scientific ground.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Probably not. This paper needs to be deleted, and started from scratch. 


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No hospital nor university would accept a presentation like this.


  • Other Comments:

    I'm especially sorry for the wife of the author, as she was "sacrificing her legitimate pleasure" (citation from the Acknowledgment Section) while her husband was preparing this "detrimental-to-knowledge" manuscript.

  • Competing interests:
    No.
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Physicist specialized in biophysics, so I clearly have experience in the field.

  • How to cite:  Zanin M .Invisible results about Self Gravity[Review of the article 'Invisible Force of Self Gravity: A Gap Area of Investigation in Life Science ' by Bhattacharjee I].WebmedCentral 2012;3(10):WMCRW002268
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Dr. Massimiliano Zanin, the erudite reviewer, has not shown supportive instance except casting blunt aspersions. I am ready to defend any specific point of the article with scientific justifications through a purposeful healthy debate, as I have mentioned in the conclusion pointing the various gap areas with invitation for suggestion/ advice. I may not be aware of many studies and results within physics, as alleged by reviewer, but as regard self organization, possibly only two items are dealt in my article. One is self organization- intrinsic property of self gravity (item 1) and other is self organization due to self gravity (item 24). In first one I have quoted from the description of eminent astrophysicist, Prof J.V. Narlikar, one time coworker of Nobel Laureate Sir Fred Hoyle and in second one is Prof. Harold M Franklin, renowned Microbiologist who claimed that self organization is not yet satisfactorily answered in biology. I simply tried to fit (in coarse grain manner) the principle outlined in astrophysics into some of the biologist’s little understood phenomena on self organization in cell with reasonable logic as the article is under the heading “My opinion”. So question of pushing unsubstantial paper does not arise. Apart from self organization, there are hundreds of facts over which reviewer seems silent. Most unfortunate, Dr. Massimiliano Zanin as reviewer has gone out of proportion from the article text and intrudes upon Acknowledgment Section, which is customarily regarded as the exclusive prerogative of an author. He has drawn sarcastic comments out of it. The webmedcentral is hereby requested to curve in the system such instance in the interest of any of its sensible author against abuse of one’s privilege as reviewer, especially to save the science to be dragged into Dark Ages of Early Medieval period.
Responded by Dr. Iresh R Bhattacharjee on 05 Oct 2012 12:04:29 PM
Wonderful Piece of Work
Posted by Prof. Gowrishankar Ramadurai on 23 Sep 2012 11:52:28 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The article very clearly outlines the role of Gravity in Life Sciences. There is no doubt that this aspect could lead to lot of exciting research work.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes, the author has done an extremely painstaking work by putting together ideas that highlight the importance of Self Gravity and its role in Life sciences.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes. An exhaustive reference list is a testimony to the thorough job done.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    By lisiting various aspects one-by-one, the author has provided enough instances and examples to validate his claims.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Not really required. The paper is self-consistent.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes. Gravity is an area of study that has not penetraded deep in to life sciences yet. While physicists and engineers talk about it in various contexts, hardly does a life scientist worry too much about gravity. Given the nature of this article which has put together many facts and figures with appropriate illustrations, definitely it is a subject of interest which could be promoted.


  • Other Comments:

    By writing this article, the author has thrown open new avenues for wonderful, exciting and interesting research works that could be taken up by many young aspirants who would like to work in interdisciplinary areas.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am a physicist basically and hence can understand the importance of the theme of the work

  • How to cite:  Ramadurai G .Wonderful Piece of Work[Review of the article 'Invisible Force of Self Gravity: A Gap Area of Investigation in Life Science ' by Bhattacharjee I].WebmedCentral 2012;3(9):WMCRW002253
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Vector Approach for the All the Potentials
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 23 Sep 2012 04:13:25 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Life and impacts of gravity


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    NA


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes,Stronger evidences  taking a vector sum of all the electric , magnetic and gravitional potential calculated either on experimental data or on assumed data could be beneficial.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes. Stronger calculations required


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    yes . Definitely. As previously described, computation on all the potentials for proving the existence of various interactive forces along with establishment of gravity as a prominent one is needed.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Yes.It creates new dimensions for the biophysicist to work , separating them from following the traditional/conventional way that bilogy still has been following. 


  • Other Comments:

    NA

  • Competing interests:
    Yes, We are group of neuroscience researchers trying to establish the forces that have impact on quantification of brain
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Vector Approach for the All the Potentials[Review of the article 'Invisible Force of Self Gravity: A Gap Area of Investigation in Life Science ' by Bhattacharjee I].WebmedCentral 2012;3(9):WMCRW002252
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Not Enough Calculations
Posted by Prof. Lester Ingber on 15 Sep 2012 12:29:28 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    "self-gravity" between consituents.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    See comments below.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No


  • Other Comments:

    I filled out a more complete report and submitted it previously, but it seems to have been lost?

     

    This paper is much too broad in covering too many phenomena, without giving any decent calculations to any one interaction.

     

    I suggested trying something like examining the interaction between two proteins, with and without the "self-gravity" forces, but including in both calcs the same chemical, biological and electromagnetic, and Earth-centric gravity forces.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Physicist

  • How to cite:  Ingber L .Not Enough Calculations[Review of the article 'Invisible Force of Self Gravity: A Gap Area of Investigation in Life Science ' by Bhattacharjee I].WebmedCentral 2012;3(9):WMCRW002234
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse