On 2014 Jun 17, Patrick Mc Gann commented:

It is not "technically" wrong, it is plain wrong!

On 2014 May 21, Maria João Carvalho commented:

The paper approaches the way how information spreads can lead to wrong actions, knowledge etc., so it should have been more accurate. I agree that the paper is itself Science miscommunication!

On 2014 May 06, D. Hilbert commented:

NDM-1 is not a microbe. It is an enzyme produced by certain microbes. Even if it has erroneously been referred to as a "superbug, bacterium, enzyme and virus" in the popular press there is no reason why it should be referred to as such in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. This article clearly should not have been published and should not be indexed in PubMed with a factually incorrect title and abstract.

On 2014 May 02, Alicia Mason commented:

The NDM-1 microbe has been referred to as a superbug, bacterium, enzyme, and virus interchangeably in popular, trade, professional and social media. As this article’s focus is on how NDM-1 has been portrayed in the popular press, referring to it as a virus fits with the nomenclature that had been used in the popular media at that time. Whilst acknowledging that referring to NDM-1 in this way is technically wrong, the editors of Journal of Health Communication are confident that the essence of what is covered in the article and quality of the peer review have not been compromised.

On 2014 Apr 25, Maneesh Paul-Satyaseela commented:

NDM-1 is not a virus, but an enzyme produced by bacteria. Indexing of this article could cause public confusion...

On 2014 Apr 23, Allison Stelling commented:

Journal of Health Communication seems to be one of the partial open access ones (see http://www.tandfonline.com/page/openaccess/openselect)- may be more about "proliferation" than "open access".

On 2014 Apr 23, Patrick Mc Gann commented:

How was this ever allowed to be published? NDM-1 is NOT a virus! I cannot believe that this paper underwent any sort of peer review, but if it did, this is terrible! The Journal of Health Communication needs to do some explaining! The proliferation of these open access journals is becoming a serious problem for scientific integrity.

On 2014 Apr 23, Patrick Mc Gann commented:

How was this ever allowed to be published? NDM-1 is NOT a virus! I cannot believe that this paper underwent any sort of peer review, but if it did, this is terrible! The Journal of Health Communication needs to do some explaining! The proliferation of these open access journals is becoming a serious problem for scientific integrity.

On 2014 Apr 25, Maneesh Paul-Satyaseela commented:

NDM-1 is not a virus, but an enzyme produced by bacteria. Indexing of this article could cause public confusion...

On 2014 May 02, Alicia Mason commented:

The NDM-1 microbe has been referred to as a superbug, bacterium, enzyme, and virus interchangeably in popular, trade, professional and social media. As this article’s focus is on how NDM-1 has been portrayed in the popular press, referring to it as a virus fits with the nomenclature that had been used in the popular media at that time. Whilst acknowledging that referring to NDM-1 in this way is technically wrong, the editors of Journal of Health Communication are confident that the essence of what is covered in the article and quality of the peer review have not been compromised.