Submited on: 23 Jan 2013 05:40:04 PM GMT
Published on: 23 Jan 2013 07:31:57 PM GMT
 
This is an Opinion, but not for here!
Posted by Dr. Dejan Stevanovic on 20 Feb 2013 09:20:50 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Not important 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No, They are drawn from an existing book!


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No


  • Other Comments:

    This article is a public opinion (just of one person!) and its does not have any scientific value. It is not any biomedical article and this is not a sutable place for it. I do agree with the previous reviewer, and suggest to remove it from WebmedCentral!

  • 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:

    I am a researcher.

  • How to cite:  Stevanovic D .This is an Opinion, but not for here![Review of the article 'Highlights of Prenatal Education at the School for Parents Varna ' by Dimitrova D].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002526
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Leaving Out Many of the Scientific Supports
Posted by Dr. P. Robert Rhoton on 20 Feb 2013 12:26:30 AM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Essentially the article is positing the concept that development of mental architecture including stress reactions occur almost imediately after conception.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The claims are not inconsistent with the Epigenome research that has been completed in the last decade, though the interpretation the author is extending is a little unsophisticated


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    N/A


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    N/A


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    N/A


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    N/A


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    N/A


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    N/A


  • Other Comments:

    N/A

  • 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 teach graduate courses on biological responses to traumagenic (stress generating) environments

  • How to cite:  Rhoton P .Leaving Out Many of the Scientific Supports[Review of the article 'Highlights of Prenatal Education at the School for Parents Varna ' by Dimitrova D].WebmedCentral 2013;4(2):WMCRW002524
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Nonacademic and Misleading
Posted by Dr. Graham Pluck on 23 Jan 2013 11:59:24 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This was entered as a systenatic review but it is not. It doesn't set out to answer any question, it just describes a handful of things that they tell future parents at their clinic. It does make some very bold statements about how unborn children experience things. These are not referenced and at times highly dubious.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The first sentance makes a claim that it is completly untrue. In fact, many of the claims are highly dubious.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    There is practicaly no referencing, so no, the claims are not placed in the context of previous literature.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    There are no results.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    Although it was entered as a systematic review it is not and therfore does not contain any information about how the review was conducted. In fact a review was not conducted.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    There is no methodology information given. Some data is provided, but it is more or less anecdotal.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    At the moment the document is just a collection of ideas and some description of things which are done at a particular clinic. A more rigourous document could be produced. But it would mean starting again from scratch. There would be no point in just trying to edit the current document.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    It is in no way outstanding.


  • Other Comments:

    This is not an academic document nor could it be considered biomedical research. The type of material in it might be covered in pop-science, religous or self-help books. This would have absolutly no chance of publication in an accepted medical journal. 

     

    It may be of interest and even of use to some people. But it clearly is not medical research.

  • 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:

    I am an academic.

  • How to cite:  Pluck G .Nonacademic and Misleading[Review of the article 'Highlights of Prenatal Education at the School for Parents Varna ' by Dimitrova D].WebmedCentral 2013;4(1):WMCRW002454
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse