Submited on: 20 Apr 2013 04:23:20 PM GMT
Published on: 22 Apr 2013 05:35:02 PM GMT
 
Spontaneous Neoplasia
Posted by Dr. William J Maloney on 14 Feb 2014 04:10:36 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

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

    The main purpose of this paper is to analyze the evidence of the frequency and diversity of types of neoplasia.


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

    Yes


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

    Yes


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

    Yes


  • 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?

    Yes


  • 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?

    Yes- this would be a great seminar in a medical school.


  • Other Comments:

    Neoplasias have been reported much more frequently in vertebrates.  The author states that neoplasia are caused by environmental factors or oncogenic mutations.  The article concludes that epigenetic mechanisms serve to escape cellular senescence and aging due to telomerase activation.  This is an extremely well referenced article.

  • 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:

    Clinical associate professor

  • How to cite:  Maloney W J.Spontaneous Neoplasia[Review of the article 'Spontaneous Neoplasia: A Destiny of Viviparous Mammal ' by Mingomataj E].WebmedCentral 2014;5(2):WMCRW002988
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Thank you for making necessary changes since last submission. example: correction of reference citation at page 6, reference 124.


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

    Second submission


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

    Second submission


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

    Second submission


  • 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?

    Second submission


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

    Second submission


  • 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?

    Second submission


  • 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?

    This is a good study.


  • Other Comments:

    None

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Cancer researcher for several years

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    As above

  • How to cite:  Guzey M .Spontaneous Neoplasia: A Destiny of Viviparous Mammal[Review of the article 'Spontaneous Neoplasia: A Destiny of Viviparous Mammal ' by Mingomataj E].WebmedCentral 2014;4(5):WMCRW002740
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Neoplasias: A Never Ending Dilema
Posted by Prof. Valcinir Bedin on 20 May 2013 01:00:06 PM GMT

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

    The main claim was to show us a point of view about spontaneous neoplasias and this is very much important.


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

    As a point of view we could say that it is novel.


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

    Yes thery are


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

    The authors propose us a challenging question and point their point of view, which is very wellcome. 


  • 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?

    NA


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

    Yes


  • 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?

    This is a paper  that needs further work. As an idea it is well positioned and has its importance.


  • 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?

    Yes. I think that everything that stimulates our brain in the search of new explanations about topics that we have doubts are of importance. It is outstanding because it does this job bery well.


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    NA

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have been teaching medicine for the last 30 years and my expertise is skin cancers.

  • How to cite:  Bedin V .Neoplasias: A Never Ending Dilema[Review of the article 'Spontaneous Neoplasia: A Destiny of Viviparous Mammal ' by Mingomataj E].WebmedCentral 2014;4(5):WMCRW002735
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    To study the process of spontaneous neoplasia in viviparous mammal


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

    Yes


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

    Yes


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

    Yes


  • 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?

    NA


  • 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?

    I am really not sure what message the author wants to give it to us from this article.

    the process of neoplasia is multifactorial & very complex & not well understood in all perspectives. The conclusion is not clear from such vast topic & study material.


  • 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:

    No

  • 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 in charge of cancer program of my institute & surgery teacher for more than decade.

  • How to cite:  Belekar D M.Spontaneous Neoplasia: A Destiny of Viviparous Mammal[Review of the article 'Spontaneous Neoplasia: A Destiny of Viviparous Mammal ' by Mingomataj E].WebmedCentral 2014;4(4):WMCRW002707
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse