Siavoshi Farideh, Saniee Parastoo
Department of Microbiology, School of Biology, University College of Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran 14176-14411, Iran.
Department of Microbiology and Microbial Biotechnology, Faculty of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Shahid Beheshti University G.C., Tehran 19839-4716, Iran.
World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Jan 14;24(2):310-314. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i2.310.
The following are the responses to the "letter to the editor" (" is preserved in yeast vacuoles! Does Koch's postulates confirm it?") authored by Nader Alipour and Nasrin Gaeini that rejected the methods, results, discussions and conclusions summarized in the review article authored by Siavoshi F and Saniee P. In the article, 7 papers, published between 1998 and 2013, were reviewed. The 7 papers had been reviewed and judged very carefully by the assigned expertise of the journals involved, including the reviewers of the (), before publication. In the review article, 121 references were used to verify the methods, results and discussions of these 7 papers. The review article was edited by the trustworthy British editor of the (), and the final version was rechecked and finally accepted by the reviewers of (). None of the reviewers made comments like those in this "letter to the editor", especially the humorous comments, which seem unprofessional and nonscientific. Above all, the authors' comments show a lack of understanding of basic and advanced microbiology, e.g. bacterial endosymbiosis in eukaryotic cells. Accordingly, their comments all through the letter contain misconceptions. The comments are mostly based on personal conclusions, without any scientific support. It would have been beneficial if the letter had been reviewed by the reviewers of the article by Siavoshi and Saniee.
以下是对纳德·阿利波尔（Nader Alipour）和纳斯林·盖伊尼（Nasrin Gaeini）撰写的“致编辑的信”（“保存在酵母液泡中！科赫法则能证实吗？”）的回应，该信驳回了西亚沃希·F（Siavoshi F）和萨尼埃·P（Saniee P）撰写的综述文章中总结的方法、结果、讨论和结论。在这篇文章中，对1998年至2013年间发表的7篇论文进行了综述。这7篇论文在发表前已经由包括相关期刊（此处括号内容缺失）的审稿人在内的指定专家进行了非常仔细的审阅和评判。在综述文章中，使用了121篇参考文献来验证这7篇论文的方法、结果和讨论。综述文章由（此处括号内容缺失）值得信赖的英国编辑编辑，最终版本由（此处括号内容缺失）的审稿人再次检查并最终接受。没有一位审稿人发表过像这封“致编辑的信”中的评论，尤其是那些幽默的评论，这些评论似乎不专业且不科学。最重要的是，作者的评论显示出对基础和高级微生物学的缺乏理解，例如真核细胞中的细菌内共生。因此，他们在整封信中的评论都存在误解。这些评论大多基于个人结论，没有任何科学依据。如果这封信能由西亚沃希和萨尼埃文章的审稿人进行审阅，将会很有帮助。
