Submited on: 27 Aug 2012 09:23:21 AM GMT
Published on: 27 Aug 2012 04:35:12 PM GMT
 

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

    First of all, the authors have used an ususual extract i.e. dry distilled extract, which by itself is novel and reported its antimicrobial activity. This is certainly an important research work to all who believe in traditional medicines and their potential use.


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

    Yes, these claims are absolutely novel.


  • 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?

    Not used in current study.


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

    Yes. But authors could include the methodology in details.


  • 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 work is enough to be presented.


  • 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?

    Certainly.


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • 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 working primarily in the formulation segment.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Investigation of Antimicrobial Effect of Dry Distilled Extract of Cocos Nucifera Linn Endocarp[Review of the article 'Investigation of Antimicrobial Effect of Dry Distilled Extract of Cocos Nucifera Linn Endocarp ' by Jagani H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(10):WMCRW002267
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Antimicrobial and anitfungal activity of endocarp of coconut is the main claim of the paper. The claims become important in the context that after using the pulp, endocarp is being thrown as waste, whereas, it has medicinal value.


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

    The claims are novel as antimicrobial properties of endocarp are not reported earlier.


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

    Yes. The claims are properly placed in the context of reported literature


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

    The results support the claim


  • 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?

    There are no deviations from the standard protocols. I feel that the study has been carried out according to pharmacopoeial method.


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

    The method is not described in detail.


  • 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?

    It is novel and good paper.


  • 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:

    K Gowthamarajan, GT Kulkarni, N Mahadevan, K Santhi, B Suresh. Antimicrobial activity of selected herbal extracts. Ancient Science of Life 21 (3), 188-190.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Kulkarni G T.Investigation of Antimicrobial Effect of Dry Distilled Extract of Cocos Nucifera Linn Endocarp [Review of the article 'Investigation of Antimicrobial Effect of Dry Distilled Extract of Cocos Nucifera Linn Endocarp ' by Jagani H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(9):WMCRW002264
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    The article refers to the potential antimicrobial activity of Dry Distilled Extract of Cocos Nucifera Linn Endocarp. The issue is really important in the field as new potential antimicrobial substances are demanded


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

    Apparently yes although some studies has been reported previously founding no activity of the described extract


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

    No, more significant references might be used


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

    No. Authors only refer some numbers without negative control testing or any statistical analyses. Additional information on material and methods and pictures on agar diffusion test supporting the claims stated might be added


  • 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?

    Author do not provide information about protocols used.


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

    No (see above)


  • 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 would recommend some information about the nature of the extract. E.g composition, aparience, etc.

    Positive and/or negative controls might be used.

    Additional repetitions on the experiments might be used (three is the minimum for a single experiment!)

    Authors refer that the extract has been tested before not founding any activity against microorganism. However this paper refers activity. Please provide some hypotheses supporting these differences


  • 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:

    NA

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

    NA

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Review on Investigation of Antimicrobial Effect of Dry Distilled Extract of Cocos Nucifera Linn Endocarp[Review of the article 'Investigation of Antimicrobial Effect of Dry Distilled Extract of Cocos Nucifera Linn Endocarp ' by Jagani H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(9):WMCRW002256
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Antimicrobial effect of the extract of C. nucifera endocarp is shown.


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

    The findings appear novel.


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

    The authors have cited several (31) prior publications but limited discussion on prior reports of antimicrobial or antifungal activity or observation with the plant species they are reporting.


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

    The results do support the claims. Additional evidence of images of plates should be included.


  • 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?

    Importantly, authors don't provide methods, but refer to a prior publication for method for preparation of abstract and for conducting activity test. Detailed methods should be included.


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

    Methodology not included in sufficient detail. An important question of concentration or activity of the extract is not discussed.


  • 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?

    Identifying the activity of the extract in a quantifiable manner and titrating the response to the activity should be reported. This should be readily doable.


  • 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?

    I would not consider this paper outstanding given the limited experimental data and procedures discussed.


  • Other Comments:

    English needs significant improvement. The abstact claims activity against two organisms, whereas the discussion section claims activity against 4 organisms. The abbreviation RNDS should be defined. Methods should be included. Difference between "clinical strains" and "standard strains" should be discussed. Relevance of testing with "standard strains", if they are not clinically important, shoudl be discussed. Prior literature on activity found with this plant should be discussed. The term "present environmental conditions" is ambiguous. The term "worth output" for negative control similarly is not clear.  Data in Illustration 2 for A. flavus with increasing concentration of extract should be discussed.

  • 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:

    Graduate research.

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Review on Singla (2012) Investigation of Antimicrobial Effect of Dry Distilled Extract of Cocos Nucifera Linn Endocarp[Review of the article 'Investigation of Antimicrobial Effect of Dry Distilled Extract of Cocos Nucifera Linn Endocarp ' by Jagani H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(9):WMCRW002254
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

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

    Authors attempted for the study of Antimicrobial of Cocos Nucifera


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

    It has been established earlier


  • 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?

    Yes


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

    Preparation of extract, they as our lab, what is it mean. Earlier studies done with various extract other than dry extract, let then give details of preparation


  • 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?

    It is an attempt


  • Other Comments:

    IN CONCLUDING REMAKS,THEY STATED THAT EARLIER STUDY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANTIMICROBIAL PROPERTIES,BUT IN THEIR ARTICLE ,THEY REFERRED ,KARADI ET.AL,2011THEY DEMONSTRATED IT.

    Karadi et al., (2011); evaluated the in vitro

    antimicrobial effect of Musa paradisiacal and Cocos

    nucifera on bacteria (Escherichia coli, staphylococcus

     

    .

    aureus , Bacillus subtillis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa) and

    fungi (Candida albicans, Candida tropicalis, Aspergillus

    niger ) using agar disc diffusion method and determine the

    inhibitory effect of both the test plants and proved that the

    both the plant extracts showed inhibitory effect on test

    organism.

    Vikas Hooda. et al. / International Journal of Pharmacy & Therapeutics, 3(2), 2012, 130-135.

     

  • Competing interests:
    Yes
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    1. Dhanya Nishant, S Rajan, Sadananda Rai, S. Gokul Shankar, K. Babu and S. Subashini, 2009. Studies on the antimicrobial activity of plunbago indica L. on certain Human skin microflora, Bull Biol. Sci. Vol. VII (2nd issue) – 129 – 134.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Rajan S .Investigation of Antimicrobial Effect of Dry Distilled Extract of Cocos Nucifera Linn Endocarp[Review of the article 'Investigation of Antimicrobial Effect of Dry Distilled Extract of Cocos Nucifera Linn Endocarp ' by Jagani H].WebmedCentral 2012;3(8):WMCRW002205
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Dear Dr. Swaminathan, Greetings from WebmedCentral. First of all, I would like to thank you for sparing time from your schedule to review our work. Sir, I wish to inform you that we had taken endocarp of cocos nucifera, which is the hard shell of coconut. Prior to us, no one had evaluated any activity on endocarp. Moreover, dry distilled extraction is a completely unusual technology which is certainly not a common technique to do extraction from plants. So over all, I would like to certain here that it is absolutely a novel work, and not repetition of any other work. Regarding Karadi et al, 2011, he had used some other part of coconut, not endocarp. Sincerely, Rajeev K Singla
Responded by Mr. Rajeev K Singla on 29 Aug 2012 06:49:10 AM