Referee Comments on Van Holde et al

Date:
1973-1974
Reference:
PP/CRI/H/5/9
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Referee Comments on Van Holde et al. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    1/17
    Dear Newark, Aaron Klug asked me, as he himself is very busy at the moment, to referee the paper (Ref. V05 113 PN/AB 21 May 1974) by Van Holde and colleagues. This has caused me embarrassment. As you will see from my review I happen to know that much of the details of which they base their model are in- correct. This would op&se-ai©- problem# except that of the evidence is in the course of publication. The key paper, by Burgoyne, Hewish and Mobbs, o jK'W- Oj-vurctesaA. lia^\i>€ftii-iield--Hp^by the Biochem. ]. The paper from our lab, by Markus Noll, which confirms and extends Hewish-Burgoyne, was only sent to Nature a few days ago. However in this case it seems to me my duty as a referee is clear. You should not publish a paper the details of which I am certain are incorrect. The other issue, which is one of priority, is more difficult. Kornberg's two papers in Science have already appeared but not before Van Holde's paper was sent to you. Since the latter's paper will in any case have to be rewritten I think it will be difficult to justify further publication of the features already suggested by Kornberg^lt^ ^ . In spite of my final remarks in reviewing their paper the authors may still want to submi'tra revised version to you. I would suggest that if this happens it would be fairer to everyone concerned to send it to a referee not i'n this lab. Johns or Bradbury ^xfEiroipa^jfeia) might be suitable. Ifetliere is anything in this awkward matte^-uo m.would like tO -discu&s-pfease dojiot-heeiULu to telephone me. Yours sincerely, P. S. I am arranging for both Burgoyne and Noll to send preprints of their papers to Van Holde.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3