Submited on: 18 Dec 2011 03:13:20 PM GMT
Published on: 19 Dec 2011 03:42:19 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? No
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? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This paper by Prof. Shahar clearly shows how deeply he has thought about the topic. This is based primarily on first-hand experience, but all of us, I would presume, would be able to correlate with Prof. Shahar's experience. He has handled the topic very eloquently, and has been very passionate in his expression, which is praise-worthy. 

  • 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:

    As an Associate Editor of a Medical Journal in India, I have experienced that there are a number of competing interests that can influence the publication process.

  • How to cite:  Bharati, PhD, MIPHA, FRSPH (London) K .On Peer-Review and the Publication Machinery[Review of the article 'On Peer-Review and the Publication Machinery ' by Shahar E].WebmedCentral 2012;3(1):WMCRW001430
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse