Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log-in |  Register |  Search

Back to the forum  Query: 2017-11-23 19:26 CET (UTC+1h)
 

The hidden details [Power / Sample Size]

posted by ElMaestro - Denmark, 2017-09-08 18:42  - Posting: # 17797
Views: 915

Hi Hötzi,

» What I like:
»    Received on August 2, 2017
»    in final form, August 2, 2017
» No peer-review of letters to the editor? Detlew and I were not so lucky in the past…

This paper was subjected to all kinds of events as far as I understand from my discussion with the author :-D:-D:
  1. The author contacted the editor in advance and said more or less "Hey, I've got this wonderful idea, but I can't submit as a full paper, and I do not see a category like 'regulatory note' like they have in the AAPS J, please suggest a solution because I think this would be the proper journal for such a publication."
  2. The editor responded back that it would fit the journal's scope and could be submitted as an "unsolicited review" even though it wasn't a review.
  3. The ms was submitted in that manuscript category.
  4. The paper was reviewed by two peers. One was very positive, the other was negative. Editor asked for a major revision.
  5. The author submitted a revision and the reviews were repeated; the negative reviewer and the author were clearly not sending and receiving on the same frequencies ('it is questionable whether this paper deserves to be published as full paper' - which the author never intended it to be, hence the initial contact to the editor).
  6. Editor rejected the submission but said the author could boil it down to 500 words and then it would be accepted as a letter with one figure.
  7. The author did that on Aug 2, and the letter was accepted the same day it was submitted with one figure and the other original tables and figures as online supplementary material. Technically, the submission of the letter was a new manuscript, hence you don't see info on the review cycle. Trust me, there was ample peer reviewing here. :lookaround:
The author had to strip some info about sensitivity to alterations in MSWR, MSWT, MSBT, MSBR and more in order to get it down to 500 words.

Even though the author does perhaps not agree 100% with the negative reviewer, the author is firmly of the opinion that editor handled this in a quite OK fashion.

I heard in my local supermarket that the author is currently looking for flighs to Prague on Sept 20. If you know the BioBridges people, ask them if there are any speaker dropouts then he could perhaps jump in and volunteer a talk about GCP/GLP findings in BE trials, Bootstrapping and how it relates to BE, or something else.

I could be wrong, but…


Best regards,
ElMaestro

No, I still don't believe much in the usefulness of IVIVCs for OIPs when it comes to picking candidate formulations for the next trial. This is not the same as saying I don't believe in IVIVCs.

Complete thread:

Back to the forum Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum | Admin contact
17,494 Posts in 3,746 Threads, 1,090 registered users;
25 users online (0 registered, 25 guests).

Cave diving is like playing chess
but the king is not made of wood.    Jochen Hasenmayer

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
XHTML/CSS RSS Feed