Submited on: 25 Apr 2011 05:41:23 AM GMT
Published on: 26 Apr 2011 07:34:21 PM GMT
 
Commets for the paper entitled
Posted by Dr. Muniappan Ayyanar on 05 Jun 2011 03:02:33 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? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? No
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
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? No
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? No
  • Other Comments:

    Nil.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    Udayakumar, M., Ayyanar, M. and Sekar, T., 2011. Angiosperms of Pachaiyappa?s College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. Check List, Journal of Species Lists and Distribution 7(1): 37 ? 48.
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I have seven years of experience in the area of plant taxonomy and ethnobotany.

  • How to cite:  Ayyanar M .Commets for the paper entitled [Review of the article 'A Study of Polypetalous Plant Diversity of Moradabad District, Uttar Pradesh, India. ' by Tiwari V].WebmedCentral 2011;2(6):WMCRW00801
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Sir, first of all We like to thank you for reviewing our article. We are glad to know that you are ready to provide as with some suggestions to increase the value of our article. We will be pleased to receive your suggestions and do our best to bring the desired changes. thank you very much sir, Raj Pal Singh
Responded by Mr. Raj P Singh on 27 Jun 2011 10:51:19 AM
Untitled
Posted by Dr. B. N. Pandey on 04 Jun 2011 10:09:21 AM GMT

  • Other Comments:

    The paper is based on astudy of 3 years.It presents avery detailed knowledge of polypetalous plants of Moradabad The tables are self explanatory .The language is lucid .I RECOMEND the publication.

  • 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:
    None
  • How to cite:  Pandey B .Untitled[Review of the article 'A Study of Polypetalous Plant Diversity of Moradabad District, Uttar Pradesh, India. ' by Tiwari V].WebmedCentral 2011;2(6):WMCRW00798
Report abuse
 
Thank you very much sir for giving your precious time and reviewing my article. I am extremely sorry as i failed to reply earlier in absence of internet connection. Raj Pal Singh
Responded by Mr. Raj P Singh on 27 Jun 2011 10:36:51 AM
Untitled
Posted by Dr. Seshu Lavania on 28 May 2011 11:28:27 AM GMT

  • Other Comments:

    Keeping in view the demand to generate biodiversity information at regional and district level, the present study conducted on enumeration of polypetalous plants is in right earnest to complement the existing information with respect to the district Moradabad. The information provided is an outcome of exhaustive study and extensive survey conducted over three years spread over seasons, and not just drawn from published account.

    However, the study suffers from a few technical deficiency since it is said to have based on the Classification of Bentham and Hooker. The  family nomenclature of certain families used is based on other recent systems, e.g. whereas according to Bentham Hooker the Leguminosae  comprises of three subfamilies namely  Paplinioideae, Caesal pinioidae and Mimosoideae, but authors have preferred  to use the names Fabaceae, Caesal pineae, Mimosae. This needs to be suitably corrected

    Further, there are some syntax errors e.g. name of the family under results is beginning with small case of initial instead of the correct requirement to begin with higher case i.e. Capital. The matter written under lines 7-10 is of repetitive nature

    The manuscript is otherwise well written and the information contained is valuable covering floristic information on 235 plant species spread over 46 families and 156 genera  found in the district Moradabad and its surroundings.

    The manuscript is worthy of publication after making minor corrections as suggested above.

  • 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:
    None
  • How to cite:  Lavania S .Untitled[Review of the article 'A Study of Polypetalous Plant Diversity of Moradabad District, Uttar Pradesh, India. ' by Tiwari V].WebmedCentral 2011;2(5):WMCRW00783
Report abuse
 
Thank you very much madam for finding time and reviewing my article. I am sorry as I failed to reply earlier because I had no internet connection available to me for a long time. I will bring the desired change very soon and resubmit my article after the desired changes. Thank you very much again "Madam". Raj Pal Singh
Responded by Mr. Raj P Singh on 27 Jun 2011 10:33:01 AM