Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA) from Nepal: a cocktail story.

The merit of a scientific writing is high only when it disseminates the new knowledge in a universally accepted and logical manner. I, with great interest, have read a paper entitled “Bacteriology and antimicrobial susceptibility of adult chronic dacryocystitis” by Chaudhary et al (2010). This paper of writing has raised few concerns after reading it and compelled me to bring the issues to the notice of the scientific community. The first issue concerns with the inappropriate way of citation and referencing observed in the paper. Accuracy of citation and referencing has been a questionable issue in Nepal (Adhikari, 2009). The authors (Chaudhary et al, 2010) have wrongly cited our paper (Dumre et al, 2008) in the discussion section for a misleading information regarding the vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA). The authors cited our work giving an impression that all the isolates we reported in our study were VRSA which information is totally wrong because we had reported only 5% as methillin resistant S. aureus (MRSA) and none of them were VRSA which is also clearly written in our abstract (Dumre et al, 2008). Moreover, the way of citation in the text is also wrong as they cited our paper as “Malla et al, 2008” which should be “Dumre et al, 2008”. The list of references contains inaccurate order of authors. This brings about a doubt whether the authors really read the cited paper.