From the comments section below the Independent article:
The interstitium has been recognized by anatomists for more the hundred years.
>""The current paper describes some morphological features which have been recognized earlier, but so far have not attracted major interest .
Any considerations by the authors beyond what has already been described in the literature are mostly speculative and not supported by hard data (e.g. impact on cancer treatment). The findings are not likely to profoundly change our understanding of human physiology, disease or treatment in the foreseeabe future.
These may be the reasons why the article failed to be published in a regular peer-reviewed scientific journal. Instead it was published in an open access journal were authors can have their work published, if they pay a "processing fee".
This pay-per-publication business model has become a major source of income for publishers and has spread widely during the past decade. Regular peer-reviewed journals in contrast have to rely financially on an apparently dwindling advertisement market. Many believe that the quality of articles published in open access journals does not compare favourably with the quality of papers published in regular peer-reviewed journals.
The following are the charges levied by Scientific Reports:
The following APC (plus VAT or local taxes where applicable) will be applied to papers accepted for publication:
£1,165 (UK)
$1,760 (The Americas, China and Japan)
€1,370 (Europe and rest of the world)
context is purely speculative.
The authors in their paper never claimed to have detected a new organ. This apparently is pure conjecture by the INDEPENDENT, who has shown a tendency in the past to send a message in headlines, which are not reflected in the articles which follow.""<<
The interstitium has been recognized by anatomists for more the hundred years.
>""The current paper describes some morphological features which have been recognized earlier, but so far have not attracted major interest .
Any considerations by the authors beyond what has already been described in the literature are mostly speculative and not supported by hard data (e.g. impact on cancer treatment). The findings are not likely to profoundly change our understanding of human physiology, disease or treatment in the foreseeabe future.
These may be the reasons why the article failed to be published in a regular peer-reviewed scientific journal. Instead it was published in an open access journal were authors can have their work published, if they pay a "processing fee".
This pay-per-publication business model has become a major source of income for publishers and has spread widely during the past decade. Regular peer-reviewed journals in contrast have to rely financially on an apparently dwindling advertisement market. Many believe that the quality of articles published in open access journals does not compare favourably with the quality of papers published in regular peer-reviewed journals.
The following are the charges levied by Scientific Reports:
The following APC (plus VAT or local taxes where applicable) will be applied to papers accepted for publication:
£1,165 (UK)
$1,760 (The Americas, China and Japan)
€1,370 (Europe and rest of the world)
context is purely speculative.
The authors in their paper never claimed to have detected a new organ. This apparently is pure conjecture by the INDEPENDENT, who has shown a tendency in the past to send a message in headlines, which are not reflected in the articles which follow.""<<