| Home | Aims | Journal | Partners | Membership | Editorial Advisory Board | E-mail | Registration |

Reviewer's Comments
Paper Number: AJTCAM-099

1. Contents

            • The ethnomedical and/or ethnoveterinary aspects are not clearly outlined in the objectives and conclusion
            • No clear objective(s)
            • No clear conclusion(s)
            • Outside scope of the journal because:
            • Activity studied has no relation whatsoever with ethnomedical/ethnoveterinary use of the components studied.
            • A pure compound not related to a traditional medicine or natural product was studied.
            • Identification of the plant material in doubt:
            • No voucher specimen is described.
            • No phytochemical profile is described in case of formulated preparation for which no voucher specimen was available (e.g. TLC, HPLC, NMR, GC).
            • The activity found is at a dose that has no meaning for actual traditional use.
            • No proper controls (positive and negative) were used.

2. Technical points

            • The paper is not according to the journal’s format
            • References format is wrong (should be: all authors, full title, abbreviation journals).
            • Keywords are missing.
            • No list of abbreviations
            • The full plant name(s) including authors is not given.
            • The plant family name is not given.
            • Study was not performed according to internationally, nationally and institutionally accepted rules for use of animals or human volunteers.
            • Figure(s) and table(s) are presenting the same results.
            • Do not repeat in text of results the numerical data already presented in table(s) or figure(s).
            • The references in the text are not in the literature list (or the reverse).
            • The conclusion are not based on appropriate statistical analysis of the data.
            • In the statistics in the tables the data and the standard deviations do not have the same precision (i.e. the number of decimals).
            • The language needs extensive improvement.

3. Final Evaluation

The Manuscript is not concisely written.

            • Shorter paper to the format of short communication: about 2000-2500 words.
            • Scientific value:
  • Excellent
  • Very good
  • Good
  • Fair
  • Little
  • None
  • Acceptable without revision
  • Acceptable with revision
  • Not Acceptable without major revision
  • Reject








| Home | Aims | Journal | Partners | Membership | Editorial Advisory Board | E-mail | Registration |