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?
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?
No
10
Are the references adequate and are they all necessary?
Yes
11
Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative?
Yes
Other Comments:
The review submitted by Hean et al. on fungal diseases and therapy lacks structure and summarizes knowledge in a way that does not add to the scientific knowledge in this area. Overall, the authors attempt to discuss the topic in a manner that mirrors that of common textbook knowledge - there is little new information. Furthermore, substantial language corrections are necessary.
The different fungizidal drugs deserve more attention, their mechanism of action, potential new developments, and especially their clinical use need to be emphasized. I would suggest the authors should resubmit this paper after substantial revisions.
Competing interests: No conflicts of interest to declare
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:
Teaching pharmacology and medicinal chemistry to PharmD students
How to cite: Grundmann O .Review response[Review of the article 'Fungal Disease and Therapy ' by Said N].WebmedCentral 2012;3(3):WMCRW001555
The review submitted by Hean et al. on fungal diseases and therapy lacks structure and summarizes knowledge in a way that does not add to the scientific knowledge in this area. Overall, the authors attempt to discuss the topic in a manner that mirrors that of common textbook knowledge - there is little new information. Furthermore, substantial language corrections are necessary.
The different fungizidal drugs deserve more attention, their mechanism of action, potential new developments, and especially their clinical use need to be emphasized. I would suggest the authors should resubmit this paper after substantial revisions.
No conflicts of interest to declare
No
No
None
Teaching pharmacology and medicinal chemistry to PharmD students