Abstract:

SIR—I have recently read with much interest a paper by Taylor et al. entitled “Staging the Baboon Response to Group A Streptococci Administrated Intramuscularly: Descriptive Study of the Clinical Symptoms and Clinical Chemical Response Patterns” in Clinical Infectious Diseases [1]. While reading through the paper, it became apparent to me that articles published since 1959, which had described in great detail the pathophysiology of group A streptococcal injury (animal models), had not been cited in this article [2–7]. One review had already covered, in detail, many of the aspects related to your article [2], and had described a steep rise in glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase levels, sorbitol dehydro-genase (SOD), and in total lipids in animals injected with extracellular products [6]. In addition, Taylor et al. cite a study (reference 48) on theta toxin. Why not cite studies that show the effects of streptolysins S and O? Furthermore, the possible effects of streptolysin O (reference 52) and cysteine proteinase (reference 53) are mentioned. I would also like to note, for the interest of the readers, a paper by Ginsburg [8] that had shown that tumor cells could be killed and disintegrated, in a synergistic manner, by combining streptolysins S with a proteinase. The cysteine proteinase employed was isolated from streptococci and kindly supplied by Dr. Elliot from the Rockefeller Institute (New York City). Moreover, I would like to draw the attention of the authors to a more recent publication that has discussed in great detail synergistic mechanisms of cell injury. I refer to a review by Ginsburg and Kohen [9]. It is of great concern that the avoidance of citations of “old” and pioneering publications has assumed epidemic dimensions, especially among younger investigators. Today, although without abstracts, MEDLINE already offers citations from 1960 and later; however, a search for “older and obsolete” literature necessitates a review of the Index Medicus. This apparently might be too cumbersome for those who tend to read only titles and abstracts and not the full texts of articles. This dangerous trend in science is self-defeating, unscholarly, unacceptable, and also unethical. Unfortunately, this is how basic observations and ideas are “lost and buried for good.” The phrase “sic transit gloria mundi” is very appropriate. It is even more disturbing that the learned referees of the paper by Taylor et al., who have been expected to be knowledgeable of the older literature on streptococci, have failed to draw their attention to the existence of such “obsolete” and apparently unimportant publications. Unfortunately this is how basic observations are “rediscovered,” leading to the suffocation of the literature with “novel,” but redundant information. I shall greatly appreciate receiving your comments regarding these issues and am also looking forward to learn what might be the future policies of the editorial board of the journal regarding strategies taken to better cope with lack of appropriate citations to support scientific publications.