WebmedCentral.com :: Article Review View

Submited on: 21 Mar 2011 07:55:16 PM GMT

Published on: 22 Mar 2011 08:20:33 PM GMT

Comments on methods and discussion

Posted by Dr. Solomon A Labaran on 20 May 2011 02:15:42 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?	Yes
3	Is this a new and original contribution?	Yes
4	Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic?	Yes
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?	Yes
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:
1) No keywords though asbstract appears adequate

2) Addition of anthropometry of stuctures could help racial comparisms

3) Method of harvesting/processing the temporal bone and whether they were fresh or dried would have been mentioned
Competing interests:
none
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:

Attendance of a Temporal Bone Dissection Course by the faculty of ORL Nat. Postgraduate Medical College of Nigeria
How to cite: Labaran S A.Comments on methods and discussion[Review of the article 'Cadaver Temporal Bone Dissection - The JOS Experience ' by Nwaorgu G].WebmedCentral 2011;2(5):WMCRW00772

Rating
Rating	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

Report abuse

Untitled

Posted by Dr. Daniel D Kokong on 22 Apr 2011 08:12:21 AM GMT

Other Comments:
1. The style of presentation is satisfactory except for the few suggestions.

2. The scientific basis for the study is sound.

3. Main problem is the small sample size which would limit chances of obtaining any existing gender variation, significant differences, if any, between the negroid and non-negroid temporal bones in terms of basic landmarks, degree of pneumatisation and other features that could affect spread of otologic diseases and ease or otherwise of otologic surgical performance.

4. References are too crowded. Check comments on the references.

5. No keywords

Thanks for the rare privilege of being amongst your highly regarded reviewers.

Yours truly,

Dr Daniel D. Kokong

M.B;B.S, FWACS, Dipl Health Systems Management(Israel)

Consultant ENT Surgeon
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: Kokong D D.Untitled[Review of the article 'Cadaver Temporal Bone Dissection - The JOS Experience ' by Nwaorgu G].WebmedCentral 2011;2(4):WMCRW00695

Report abuse