LETTER TO THE EDITOR
No chromosome but image duplication – pericentric inversion or direct duplication – in independent simultaneous papers from the same authors (Kuan et al., 2013a,b). Although it is true that in the more recent paper (as inferred from acceptance dates) Kuan et al. (2013a) refer to their previous report of ‘two cases of direct duplication of the Y-chromosome’ (Kuan et al., 2013b), they fail to properly contrast these alternative interpretations. In fact, the failure to deal with alternative explanations openly instead of surreptitiously should be regarded as a further questionable research practice (Pimple, 2002).
doi: 10.1111/and.12266
The article in this Journal (Kuan et al., 2013b) on a pair of dicentric Y-chromosomes described as direct duplications deserves some comments, especially if one compares this report with a simultaneous related paper published elsewhere by the same group of authors (Kuan et al., 2013a): 1 The definition of four Y-chromosome ‘polymorphisms’ (Kuan et al., 2013b) diverges from classical notions. In particular, the inv(Y) heteromorphism is incorrectly defined as ‘pericentric inversion of the constitutive heterochromatin of the long arm (inv qh)’ whereas variations in Yqh size, that is, Yqh+ and Yqh chromosomes, should be regarded as a single heteromorphism. 2 The use of the term direct duplication to name such dicentric Y-chromosomes (Kuan et al., 2013b) is at least atypical; for traditional or classical nomenclature (Shaffer et al., 2013), dicentric chromosomes represent a heterogeneous category but are not encompassed by the term duplication. 3 The apparent sameness of the C-banded gonosomes of Case 2 (right hand pair in Fig. 1b) with the corresponding paternal pair from another family described in a simultaneous paper by the same authors (Kuan et al., 2013a; right hand pair in Fig. 1B) can hardly be dismissed as mere coincidence (Rivera, submitted manuscript to the TJOG). Actually, the unexpected absence of FISH images for Case 2 (but not for Case 1) in this Journal’s paper (Kuan et al., 2013b) contrasts with the inclusion of such images in the companion paper (Kuan et al., 2013a). Then, the conclusion of a (partial) duplicate publication of the same image in both papers by Kuan et al. (2013a,b) seems inescapable (Fyrth, 2002; Martinson et al., 2005). 4 The crucial point here is how the same abnormal Y-chromosome can be ascribed to different mechanisms
© 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH Andrologia 2014, 46, 707
1
H. Rivera1,2 Division de Genetica, CIBO, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Guadalajara, Mexico, 2Doctorado en Genetica Humana, CUCS, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico e-mail: [email protected]
References Fyrth AY (2002) Editorial stance on duplicate and salami publications. Br Orthopt J 59:1–2. Kuan L-C, Su M-T, Chen M, Kuo P-L, Kuo T-C (2013a) A dicentric Y chromosome resulting from pericentric inversion between the centromere and Yq heterochromatin. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 52:443–445. Kuan L-C, Su M-T, Kuo P-L, Kuo T-C (2013b) Direct duplication of the Y chromosome with normal phenotype – incidental finding in two cases. Andrologia 45:140–144. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R (2005) Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435:737–738. Pimple KD (2002) Six domains of research ethics: a heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research. Sci Eng Ethics 8:191–205. Shaffer LG, McGowan-Jordan J, Schmid M, editors (2013) An International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (2013). S Karger, Basel.
707
No chromosome but image duplication – pericentric inversion or direct duplication – in independent simultaneous papers from the same authors (Kuan et al., 2013a,b). Although it is true that in the more recent paper (as inferred from acceptance dates) Kuan et al. (2013a) refer to their previous report of ‘two cases of direct duplication of the Y-chromosome’ (Kuan et al., 2013b), they fail to properly contrast these alternative interpretations. In fact, the failure to deal with alternative explanations openly instead of surreptitiously should be regarded as a further questionable research practice (Pimple, 2002).
doi: 10.1111/and.12266
The article in this Journal (Kuan et al., 2013b) on a pair of dicentric Y-chromosomes described as direct duplications deserves some comments, especially if one compares this report with a simultaneous related paper published elsewhere by the same group of authors (Kuan et al., 2013a): 1 The definition of four Y-chromosome ‘polymorphisms’ (Kuan et al., 2013b) diverges from classical notions. In particular, the inv(Y) heteromorphism is incorrectly defined as ‘pericentric inversion of the constitutive heterochromatin of the long arm (inv qh)’ whereas variations in Yqh size, that is, Yqh+ and Yqh chromosomes, should be regarded as a single heteromorphism. 2 The use of the term direct duplication to name such dicentric Y-chromosomes (Kuan et al., 2013b) is at least atypical; for traditional or classical nomenclature (Shaffer et al., 2013), dicentric chromosomes represent a heterogeneous category but are not encompassed by the term duplication. 3 The apparent sameness of the C-banded gonosomes of Case 2 (right hand pair in Fig. 1b) with the corresponding paternal pair from another family described in a simultaneous paper by the same authors (Kuan et al., 2013a; right hand pair in Fig. 1B) can hardly be dismissed as mere coincidence (Rivera, submitted manuscript to the TJOG). Actually, the unexpected absence of FISH images for Case 2 (but not for Case 1) in this Journal’s paper (Kuan et al., 2013b) contrasts with the inclusion of such images in the companion paper (Kuan et al., 2013a). Then, the conclusion of a (partial) duplicate publication of the same image in both papers by Kuan et al. (2013a,b) seems inescapable (Fyrth, 2002; Martinson et al., 2005). 4 The crucial point here is how the same abnormal Y-chromosome can be ascribed to different mechanisms
© 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH Andrologia 2014, 46, 707
1
H. Rivera1,2 Division de Genetica, CIBO, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Guadalajara, Mexico, 2Doctorado en Genetica Humana, CUCS, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico e-mail: [email protected]
References Fyrth AY (2002) Editorial stance on duplicate and salami publications. Br Orthopt J 59:1–2. Kuan L-C, Su M-T, Chen M, Kuo P-L, Kuo T-C (2013a) A dicentric Y chromosome resulting from pericentric inversion between the centromere and Yq heterochromatin. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 52:443–445. Kuan L-C, Su M-T, Kuo P-L, Kuo T-C (2013b) Direct duplication of the Y chromosome with normal phenotype – incidental finding in two cases. Andrologia 45:140–144. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, de Vries R (2005) Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435:737–738. Pimple KD (2002) Six domains of research ethics: a heuristic framework for the responsible conduct of research. Sci Eng Ethics 8:191–205. Shaffer LG, McGowan-Jordan J, Schmid M, editors (2013) An International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (2013). S Karger, Basel.
707
