Submited on: 26 Oct 2010 05:43:01 PM GMT
Published on: 27 Oct 2010 12:57:10 PM GMT
 
Not a systematic review
Posted by Dr. Pedro Xavier-Elsas on 01 Dec 2011 02:59:34 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? No
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:

    First of all, readers should be warned that the writing in this paper is close to unintelligibility. There are incomplete sentences everywhere, leaving the reader in the dark as to the meaning of the authors. Nomenclature and use of scientific language are very far from current use in the field. Incredible typos abound (for one example, physiologist Walter Cannon, a household name for anyone working with physiology, is referred to as Walter common). This makes it an excruciating challenge to decide whether the authors have correctly appraised the progress in the field of psychoneuroimmunology of stress, let alone whether they have advanced any new concept.  Of course, one cannot know whether the interpretations and conclusions are sound and justified by the data, since both the interpretations and conclusions are extremely confused by poor writing, and it is not always clear what data are being referred to. I don't think this manuscript qualifies as a systematic review, which is a well-defined category of scientific study, following requirements for clarity and organization that are utterly lacking here. The appropriateness of diction, illustrations, keywords and abstract, and so on, are equally affected by this primary flaw. If the manuscript were thoroughly revised by someone familiar with scientific English, it might perhaps become useful to some readers. As it stands, however, it is mostly a waste of any reader's time.

  • Competing interests:
    None at all
  • 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:

    I work in experimental models of stress-induced immunomodulation.

  • How to cite:  Xavier-Elsas P .Not a systematic review[Review of the article 'Psychoneuro Immunology (p.n.i) Of Stress ' by Singh V].WebmedCentral 2010;2(12):WMCRW001185
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Psychoneuro Immunology (p.n.i) Of Stress
Posted by Dr. Om Parkash on 11 Nov 2010 02:42:48 AM GMT

  • Other Comments:

    Informative artilce worth reading

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • 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:

    I have experience in immunology

  • How to cite:  Parkash O .Psychoneuro Immunology (p.n.i) Of Stress [Review of the article 'Psychoneuro Immunology (p.n.i) Of Stress ' by Singh V].WebmedCentral 2010;1(11):WMCRW00130
Report abuse