做純生信數(shù)據(jù)挖掘一定要驗(yàn)證嗎甲锡？不一定兆蕉，因?yàn)橐欢褯]有驗(yàn)證的文章照樣發(fā)表了羽戒。補(bǔ)充驗(yàn)證一定可以加分？也不一定虎韵，看期刊主編和審稿人的易稠。下面這兩個(gè)案例就是因?yàn)檠a(bǔ)充了驗(yàn)證，差點(diǎn)對(duì)審稿人懟哭了包蓝，被拒稿的可能性也很大驶社。
案例1
Reviewer 1:
The author used more than 500 cases of TCGA data to build the model, and then used 102 cases of GEO data to verify the model. There is too much difference between the two, and the verification part does not have much meaning.?Therefore, this article is not suitable for publication.
案例2
Section Editor's Comments to Author:
These key genes were screened out using hundreds of TCGA data, which was based on difference analysis. However, the author collects only 20 samples from hospitals, which will lead to a lack of reliability in the verification results, which may affect the results of the entire article.?Therefore, authors should increase the sample size for verification to increase the credibility of the paper's results.
第一案例作者是使用TCGA數(shù)據(jù)建模，然后使用GEO數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行驗(yàn)證养晋，正常的情況下衬吆，補(bǔ)充驗(yàn)證是加分的，結(jié)果被這位審稿人建議拒稿處理绳泉，因?yàn)閷徃迦苏J(rèn)為GEO的樣本量太少了逊抡。一般來說GEO數(shù)據(jù)的樣本量都是比較少的，有的甚至只有幾個(gè)樣本零酪，或者十來個(gè)冒嫡。如果有條件的話，誰不愿意找上千樣本的四苇。
第二個(gè)案例就是期刊編輯認(rèn)為作者使用自己收集的臨床樣本來驗(yàn)證這些基因太少了孝凌，認(rèn)為缺乏一定的可信度，需要作者回去增大樣本量來驗(yàn)證月腋。這編輯說得倒是輕巧了蟀架，完全沒有考慮到作者的情況。第一榆骚，增加樣本無疑就是增加時(shí)間片拍，而且有時(shí)間樣本也是有限的，不是你想拿就能拿到妓肢；第一捌省，增加樣本測(cè)序就是增加科研經(jīng)費(fèi)，不是誰都有這么多錢碉钠。例如如果只有20萬的青年基金經(jīng)費(fèi)纲缓，你前面花完了就是花完，哪有錢再進(jìn)行測(cè)序喊废。因?yàn)闃颖静皇悄阆爰泳湍芗拥淖８撸旧隙际怯扇肆ξ锪Αr(shí)間來決定的污筷。
