Submited on: 08 Feb 2012 01:33:59 PM GMT
Published on: 09 Feb 2012 02:46:01 PM GMT
 
Lymphatic Network of the Common Bile Duct
Posted by Prof. Carla Palumbo on 30 Apr 2012 10:12:37 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? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The paper shows interesting new considerations as far as the involvement of lymphatic vessels of hepatic pedicle is concerned, both in physiological conditions and in the diffusion of inflammatory or neoplastic diseases. The observations appear original, considerable and are worth of further study.

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

    The research interest concerns the histo-physio-pathology of calcified tissues.

    The teaching interest concerns all the fields of normal human anatomy, including the functional morphology of the biliary tract and the associated lynphatic drainage and blood supply.

  • How to cite:  Palumbo C .Lymphatic Network of the Common Bile Duct[Review of the article 'Lymphatic Network of the Common Bile Duct ' by Rivasi F].WebmedCentral 2012;3(4):WMCRW001752
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Lymphatic Network of the Common Bile Duct
Posted by Prof. Stefania Staibano on 06 Apr 2012 08:42:04 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? Yes
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? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This paper is of a good quality, and adds interesting information on the putative role of lymphatic network in conditioning the diffusion of inflammatory or neoplastic diseases at the level of hepatic pedicle.

    According to my opinion, this role should be outlined also in the title of the 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:

      

  • How to cite:  Staibano S .Lymphatic Network of the Common Bile Duct[Review of the article 'Lymphatic Network of the Common Bile Duct ' by Rivasi F].WebmedCentral 2012;3(4):WMCRW001655
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The authors present an interesting and  well set paper, with valid iconography and complete references. 

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

    Reviewer of the "Medical Science Monitor" for pathological and patholpogical-forensic fields.

  • How to cite:  Silingardi E .Lymphatic network of the common bile duct: a useful contribution to the understanding of certain pathological conditions.[Review of the article 'Lymphatic Network of the Common Bile Duct ' by Rivasi F].WebmedCentral 2012;3(2):WMCRW001506
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Lymphatic Network of the Common Bile Duct
Posted by Dr. Jian Yi Li on 16 Feb 2012 02:39:55 PM 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? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Good article

  • 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:

    Pathologist loves GI pathology

  • How to cite:  Li J .Lymphatic Network of the Common Bile Duct [Review of the article 'Lymphatic Network of the Common Bile Duct ' by Rivasi F].WebmedCentral 2012;3(2):WMCRW001496
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Lymphatic network of the common bile duct
Posted by Prof. Valerio Cane' on 14 Feb 2012 10:31:41 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? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Good english

  • Competing interests:
    I have any competing interest(s) to declare
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    My experience is calcified tissue area

  • How to cite:  Cane\' V .Lymphatic network of the common bile duct[Review of the article 'Lymphatic Network of the Common Bile Duct ' by Rivasi F].WebmedCentral 2012;3(2):WMCRW001487
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse