Ergot Alkaloid

  1. Assess the scientific background of the work focusing on what the state of the art on the topic is prior to the manuscript under review.
  2. Assess the manuscript, which you received using the check list provided
  3. Write a short assessment of the paper explaining your decision and providing specific feedback to the authors, which – if required – can be used to improve the manuscript
  4. What specific problems (if any) need to be resolved?
  5. Discuss whether the manuscript is of an adequate standard to merit publication   on one of the leading specialized journals in the field of medicinal plant research.
  6. Regarding references, use any relevant references.

 

Check list referee: please check if the article applies all these points

 

Which of the following points specific for reviews are applicable?

  • The manuscript has a clear and well described focus, which bears relevance to an important Ethnopharmacological question/problem.
  • It is multidisciplinary and/ or approaches the topic from a variety of angels.
  • It explains and critically analyses the relevant data and does not just list facts uncritically.
  • The ethnopharmaclogical context is outlined clearly in the introduction and the conclusions.
  • It will stimulate discussions among the many colleagues interested in people’s use of plants, fungi, animals, micro-organism and minerals and their biological and pharmacological effects.
  • It is written for to an audience with a broad background (i.e not for specialists in one area only).
  • It certainly is of interest to an international audience.
  • Is enjoyable in reading?

 

The following points relevant to the content need to be addressed/ corrected:

  • The ethnopharmacological aspects are not clearly outlines in the objectives and conclusion.
  • Outside scope of the journal because:
    • Activity reviewed has no relation whatsoever with Ethnopharmacology of the plants studied.
    • A pure compound not related to a traditional medicine was studied.
  • Large parts of the document are not or only marginally relevant to the topic (which this parts).
  • The manuscript is too elaborate/lengthy (which parts can have shortened).
  • The manuscropt is too short (which parts need to be developed)
  • Identification of plant material in doubt and/or possible problems with the identification provided in the articles reviewed have not been addressed.
  • The methods used are not adequate.
  • The activity found/discussed is at a dose that has no meaning for actual local or traditional use.

 

In case of reviews focusing on a single species or genus:

  • The following data are lacking or incomplete. If pharmacological studies are reviewed, information on the dose range tested, the minimal active concentration, the model used ( including information whether it in vitro or in vivo study), if and what controls (including positive and negative), duration, type of extract used as well as other basic pharmacological data needs to be included. In case of clinical studies, the dosing regimen needs to be included. Most importantly the dose range and an assessment of the relevance of these data is required. Please spell out details in your comment to the authors.
  • The toxicological information available on the species has not been reviewed.

Technical problems

  • Not the right format for the references (should be: all authors, full title, no abbreviations journals).
  • Keywords are missing/ insufficient.
  • No list of abbreviation
  • The references in the text are not in the literature list (or the revers).
  • The paper is not according to the format of the journal.
  • The language needs extensive improvement.
  • The conclusions are not based on an appropriate statistical analysis or the data.
  • The full plant name(s) is not given /is wrong.
  • The species name was not authenticated in one of the international database.
  • The plant family is not given.
  • Study was not performed according internationally, nationally and institutionally accepted rules for use of animals or human volunteers.
  • Figures and tables are presenting same data (which: —)
  • Do not repeat in text of results the numerical data already presented in table(s) or figure(s).
  • Delete figures or tables (which).

Final evaluation

  • There is a substantial amount of critical analysis of preexisting data present, which contributes to an advancement of science.
  • The paper is concisely written.
  • Scientific value:
    • Outstanding
    • Very good
    • fair
    • little
    • none
  • Accepted without revision
  • Accepted with revision
  • Not acceptable

Please provide some notes to the author as a feed back to improve the manuscript.

 

p(4s)

Place your order now to enjoy great discounts on this or a similar topic.

People choose us because we provide:

Essays written from scratch, 100% original,

Delivery within deadlines,

Competitive prices and excellent quality,

24/7 customer support,

Priority on their privacy,

Unlimited free revisions upon request, and

Plagiarism free work,

 

Order Similar Assignment Now!

  • Our Support Staff are online 24/7
  • Our Writers are available 24/7
  • Most Urgent order is delivered within 4 Hrs
  • 100% Original Assignment Plagiarism report can be sent to you upon request.

GET 15 % DISCOUNT TODAY use the discount code PAPER15 at the order form.

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page:
 Total: