Submited on: 16 Oct 2010 09:39:54 AM GMT
Published on: 16 Oct 2010 01:42:44 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? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Paper is related to an interesting and actual problem of presentation of pathways of  central nervous system in humans. Various ways of these presentations can be a limiting factor in neurosciences.  Interesting is also author’s suggestion to the standardized presentation of nervous pathways, as well as pointing to the parallelism to internet studies. History of anatomical nomenclature suggests to possible solution for similar standardization of visual  presentations in neuroanatomy. Interesting paperfull  of information , congratulations to author.


  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:


  • How to cite:  Spasojevic G .Standardized Digital Mapping Of The central Nervous System Connections in Humans[Review of the article 'Standardized Digital Mapping Of The Central Nervous System Connections In Humans ' by Malobabic S].WebmedCentral 2010;1(11):WMCRW00143
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse