-
Reviews
Back to Reviews
-
Other Comments:
There are mistakes in the references.
The aim of the review is not clear.
The reporting of information from the already published papers are not well organized.
Providing entry and metabolism of endosulphan would have been useful prior to listing the toxicity effects.
Tabulation of dose / route / durtion -wise variation of toxicity effects could have been useful for the reader.
Logic behind listing only some selective toxicity is not clear. An objective-oriented planning of the report-listing is required.
-
Competing interests:
No
-
Invited by the author to review this article? :
No -
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
Yes
-
References:
Perinatal Toxicity Of Aluminum - ISPUB (http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-toxicology/volume-3-number-1/perinatal-toxicity-of-aluminum.html) Aluminum: impacts and disease. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12123643) -
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Worked and published both review and original research work on the field of toxicity.
- How to cite: Nayak P .Could have been better.[Review of the article 'Effects of Endosulfan on Human Health ' by Askari Saryazdi G].WebmedCentral 2011;2(12):WMCRW001324
-
Other Comments:
Nice article-compilingall the details necessary for endosulfan.
-
Competing interests:
no
-
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:
MD in forensic medicine and toxicology with a work experience of 6 years inthe speciality
- How to cite: Rastogi P .Effects of endosulfan on human health[Review of the article 'Effects of Endosulfan on Human Health ' by Askari Saryazdi G].WebmedCentral 2011;2(12):WMCRW001312
This article is a review of endosulfan toxicity; therefore, it is not new research. There are a few grammatical and speling errors that should be addressed. The biggest problem I have is the anonymous sourcing. This is unacceptable; the author should find a new source that buttresses this information or remove it.
none
No
No
None
phd in tox/risk assessment, work in env and occ health