Submited on: 17 Jan 2012 06:59:29 AM GMT
Published on: 17 Jan 2012 09:35:10 PM GMT
 
Assessment of submitted review
Posted by Dr. Oliver Grundmann on 13 Apr 2012 09:11:53 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? Partly
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? 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? No
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:

    The authors provided a succint review of the current guidelines for impurities as highlighted by various regulatory agencies. The overall summary of the current guidelines and how to classify impurities provides a good starting point for researcher entering the field but it does not provide much in-depth knowledge on how these impurities are commonly detected and how this process could be optimized. The conclusions are very brief and are not well related to the rest of the review. Language revisions should be made accordingly - the sentence structure is at times hard to follow.

  • Competing interests:
    No competing interests to declare.
  • 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:

    Pharmacist

  • How to cite:  Grundmann O .Assessment of submitted review[Review of the article 'Impurities in Pharmaceutical Dosage Form: A Subject Matter of Great Concern ' by Singla R].WebmedCentral 2012;3(4):WMCRW001681
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse