Submited on: 05 Sep 2011 01:27:12 AM GMT
Published on: 05 Sep 2011 06:09:44 PM 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? No
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? No
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? No
  • Other Comments:

    No figures were included although mentioned in the text

    No key words were included

     

  • Competing interests:
    NO
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    molecular oncology

  • How to cite:  El-Abd E I.ML-IAP (Livin) and Human Cancers: A Recent Review [Review of the article 'ML-IAP (Livin) and Human Cancers: A Recent Review ' by Cheung C].WebmedCentral 2011;2(9):WMCRW00936
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Dear Prof. El-Abd The "Keywords" have been clearly shown on the frontpage of the article. If you cannot find the "Keywords", you have possibly read the old version of the paper, which contains some errors created by the WebmedCentral during the publication process. They have fixed the problem and the recent version should be fine. Thank you for your concern.
Responded by Dr. Chun Hei Antonio Cheung on 19 Sep 2011 10:15:35 AM

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? No
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? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    As a review it fits all the needs. It is a very important subject that needed a review like this.

  • 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 have been working on melanomas for the last 20 years.

  • How to cite:  Bedin V .ML-IAP (livin) and Human Cancers: A Recent Review[Review of the article 'ML-IAP (Livin) and Human Cancers: A Recent Review ' by Cheung C].WebmedCentral 2011;2(9):WMCRW00927
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Thank you for your comments.
Responded by Dr. Chun Hei Antonio Cheung on 19 Sep 2011 10:15:58 AM
Not suitable for review
Posted by Dr. Juan S Yakisich on 05 Sep 2011 08:47:39 PM 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? No
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? No
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
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? No
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? No
  • Other Comments:

    This article cannot be reviewed at the present stage.  Needs references.

    Fig 1 is mentioned in the text but no figure is present in the manuscript.

  • 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:

    Research in oncology.

  • How to cite:  Yakisich J S.Not suitable for review[Review of the article 'ML-IAP (Livin) and Human Cancers: A Recent Review ' by Cheung C].WebmedCentral 2011;2(9):WMCRW00926
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Dear R. Yakisich The absent of the "References" section in the published article was a manuscript processing error caused by the WebmedCentral. The published paper is now "fixed" by the WebmedCentral team and references are now listed in the paper. Thank you for your notice.
Responded by Dr. Chun Hei Antonio Cheung on 09 Sep 2011 04:23:38 PM