Submited on: 27 Dec 2010 10:41:48 AM GMT
Published on: 28 Dec 2010 12:52:33 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? Yes
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? 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:

    Authors are using brain rate to explain the possible benefical or detrimental roles of mobile phones though a possible indicator this seriously discounts the other effects of  cell phones that might be affecting other brain functions.

     The other studies pointed out by the authors were extensive yet failed to incoporate all the aspects of this complex problem. One  of the major drawback is use of cell phones and its role in brain  developmental abnormalities includinge brain tumor. This  is a complex issue that need to be addressed using multi prong approach.

  • 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:

    Brain researcher

  • How to cite:  Sathyan P .A complex issue that needs a multi prong approach[Review of the article 'Mobile Phones, E E G And Mental Activity ' by Pop-Jordanova N].WebmedCentral 2010;2(1):WMCRW00346
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
The authors are thankful for your review and comments. In the revised manuscript , published on 30 January 2011, (1) the sections of results and discussion are expanded and (2) the information from illustrations is transferred to paper text, so that their number is very much reduced. Concerning your main objection which is related to not including the other effects of cell phones (noting that “one of the major drawback is use of cell phones and its role in brain development abnormalities including brain tumor”) the authors underline that these effects are out of the scope of the paper. This is additionally emphasized by a new sentence at the beginning of the chapter “Empirical evidence”.
Responded by Prof. Jordan Pop-Jordanov on 31 Jan 2011 10:56:19 AM
Mobile Phones, E E G And Mental Activity
Posted by Prof. Giedrius Varoneckas on 04 Jan 2011 09:16:28 AM 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? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
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? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
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:

    The research idea of the paper is very timely and original. The main task of the paper is to review the published results on these topics and to present a discussion of the effects of mobile phone effects on human brain and mental activity. The paper concludes that EEG spectrum weighted frequency (brain rate), characterizing the level of mental arousal, can serve as a useful preliminary indicator of possible mobile phones influences.

    However, I would like to recommend to expand the section of results and discussion. More detail description of the EEG spectrum weighted frequency methodology would be an advantage. The number of pictures could be shortened easily by transferring the information from pictures to the paper text.

    I recommend this paper for final publication.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • 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:

    Application of methods of heart rate variability and electroencephalograpy for sleep research and functional testing. Analysis of heart rate and EEG spectrum weighted frequency during individual sleep stages.

  • How to cite:  Varoneckas G .Mobile Phones, E E G And Mental Activity[Review of the article 'Mobile Phones, E E G And Mental Activity ' by Pop-Jordanova N].WebmedCentral 2010;2(1):WMCRW00328
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
The authors are thankful for your valuable comments and suggestions. In the revised manuscript, published on 30 January 2011, all of them are taken into account, namely: (1) the sections of results and discussion are expanded, (2) the EEG spectrum weighted frequency methodology is described with more details and (3) the information from illustrations is transferred to paper text, so that their number is very much reduced (from 10 to 2).
Responded by Prof. Jordan Pop-Jordanov on 31 Jan 2011 10:56:52 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? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
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:

    The quality of the tables and illustrations is not enough to read them easily.

  • 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 am working on cognitive electrophysiology and EEG, but not much interested in the effects of mobile phones.

  • How to cite:  Karamursel S .Mobile Phones, E E G And Mental Activity -Reviewed by Sacit Karam?rsel[Review of the article 'Mobile Phones, E E G And Mental Activity ' by Pop-Jordanova N].WebmedCentral 2010;1(12):WMCRW00305
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
The authors are grateful for your valuable review and comments. Concerning the tables and illustrations, in the revised paper, published on 30 January 2011, their quality is improved and the number is very much reduced (from 10 to 2), transferring most of the information to paper text.
Responded by Prof. Jordan Pop-Jordanov on 31 Jan 2011 10:59:22 AM
Mobile Phones and Brain
Posted by Prof. Nataliya A Babenko on 29 Dec 2010 03:13:00 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? 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? Yes
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:

    The main goal of the article is to present the published results and a possible explanation of mobile phone effects on human brain and mental activity. The results analysed in the paper published in the high quality journals. The topic of the article is extremely important.

    I could recommend pay more attention in the article for the discussion. The quality of the presented illustrations could be better. The illustrations are not acceptable.

  • Competing interests:
    none
  • 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 study the brain biochemistry and cognitive function at different age.

  • How to cite:  Babenko N A.Mobile Phones and Brain[Review of the article 'Mobile Phones, E E G And Mental Activity ' by Pop-Jordanova N].WebmedCentral 2010;1(12):WMCRW00303
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
The authors are thankful for your valuable comments and suggestions. In the revised paper, published on 30 January 2011, more attention is paid to the discussion, the quality of illustrations is improved and their number considerably decreased, transferring most of the information to paper text.
Responded by Prof. Jordan Pop-Jordanov on 31 Jan 2011 11:00:07 AM