WebmedCentral.com :: Article Review View

Young reviewer

Posted by Dr. Gian Domenico Giusti on 23 Oct 2011 11:50:05 AM GMT

1	Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category?	Yes
2	Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data?	Yes
3	Is this a new and original contribution?	Yes
4	Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic?	Yes
5	Are structure and length satisfactory?	Yes
6	Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience?	No
7	Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts?	No
8	Is the quality of the diction satisfactory?	Yes
9	Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable?	No
10	Are the references adequate and are they all necessary?	Yes
11	Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative?	Yes

Other Comments:
From the article it is clear what is "behind" the publication of an article
Competing interests:
none
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
References:
None
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

I am a young reviewer, but I find myself in many parts of this article
How to cite: Giusti G .Young reviewer[Review of the article 'Pre-Publication Peer Review - My Confession About being Reviewed and Reviewing others ' by Stevanovic D].WebmedCentral 2011;2(10):WMCRW001039

Rating
Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Report abuse

Posted by Dr. Bill Misner on 23 Oct 2011 02:32:10 AM GMT

1	Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category?	Yes
2	Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data?	Yes
3	Is this a new and original contribution?	Yes
4	Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic?	Yes
5	Are structure and length satisfactory?	Yes
6	Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience?	No
7	Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts?	No
8	Is the quality of the diction satisfactory?	Yes
9	Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable?	No
10	Are the references adequate and are they all necessary?	Yes
11	Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative?	Yes

Other Comments:
There were no needs for illustrations or tables; Dr. Stevanovic painted a picture of the peer review process that exceeded the artistic limits of the most technical software ever created. This scientist's comments demonstrate the weakness of those who have been exposed to more knowledge than human ego can control. Simply put, this "ordinary Physician" is invited to not only review my work but treat my worst ailment.

I declare, in spite of the advantages WebMedCentral brings to the Science Review, it has yet to provide the constructive review model this author identified. Well done Sir!

Bill Misner PhD
Competing interests:
None
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
No
References:
None
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

Many years being unpredictively, unfairly and fairly reviewed...For a while I thought Dr. Stevanovic was describing me.
How to cite: Misner B .Post-Publication - A Brilliant Exposé of The Peer Review Process[Review of the article 'Pre-Publication Peer Review - My Confession About being Reviewed and Reviewing others ' by Stevanovic D].WebmedCentral 2011;2(10):WMCRW001038

Rating
Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Report abuse