Inspiration, collaboration, and cooperation in the PCMR community

Abstract

Many readers of PCMR recently traveled to their respective pigment cell research society meetings or will be traveling to the upcoming Society for Melanoma Research meeting. These are always exciting opportunities to present new findings, hear about new results that inspire new experiments, and meet colleagues from around the globe. These meetings serve to educate and inform the research community and enhance the pace of pigment and melanoma cell research. The sharing of information and resources is a crucial part of this process. The best constructs, cell lines, tissue resources, and animal models are difficult to develop, but are of immense value to different investigators studying specific aspects of pigment cell and melanoma research. There are perceived and occasionally real risks of others developing overlapping research programs based on the use of these resources; however, the development and widespread use of these tools with minimal restrictions is critical to move research forward. Such a collaborative research approach has become much more common in recent years – indeed, it is often vital, for many of the complex biological problems currently being evaluated require a diversity of skill-sets rarely seen in anything but the largest labs. Despite the inherent difficulties in getting multiple investigators to work together, the broader range of expertise has allowed for major advances in pigment cell and melanoma biology over the past several years. An increasingly common topic of conversation at these research meetings is the difficulty in getting and retaining adequate funding for research. At times, this creates an atmosphere in which individual goals of obtaining funding takes precedence over broader goals, sometimes to the detriment of other investigators. Competition is an inherent part of human nature, but nearly every investigator can recall examples of paper or grant reviews that cannot be construed as constructive or fair even by the most objective observer. We are happy to say that the proportion of reviews submitted to PCMR that are unfairly negative is very small. Indeed, the majority are constructive, thoughtful critiques, and some are truly exemplary reviews, with a level of detail that is impressive to behold. As editors, we applaud those who take the time to make such sacrificial efforts on behalf of their colleagues in the field, efforts that allow the authors to make genuine improvements to the presentation and impact of their work. What is to be done about clearly inappropriate reviews? If we receive unsubstantiated, subjective reviews, we either seek additional input or may simply ignore reviews that are negative without significant substance. The pigment cell community is a relatively small one, so that a co-operative and considerate approach in the long run will always pay dividends; the entire research community suffers when merit-based evaluation of papers does not occur.