The first line of the manuscript claims that the "natural products from medicinal and aromativc plants (MAP)s have lesser harmful effects. I do not believe in this sentence. It should be examined on case by case basis.
The paper do not present sufficient information to be regarded as a "review". It is written in general terms, do not offer any critism, comparison, etc.
The number of the references are far too short than a typical review paper.
What I would understand from a "mini -review" would be in depth review of a very well defined highly focused subject. Authors are speaking about 50 000 to 70 000 species, and only referring the readers to the databases, without contributing anything.
I believe that this paper do not match the WebMed Central + standards, and should be rejected.
Posted by Anonymous reviewer on 15 Nov 2013 09:56:42 AM GMT
Thank you for the comments.
\n
To satiate your comments I perhaps take refuge in the sentence that appears in the data sources and overview section: \"...this article overlooks many important publications and approaches, the readers must keep in mind that this article is intended to be a mini-review and every review have their limitations...\"
\n
As far as matching the WebMedCentral+ standards, one should be clear on the relative term \'standards\'. What is standard to one individual may be substandard to others.
\n
Anyhow, in the scientific literature, perhaps standards are set by the impact factors and citations. WebMedCentral+ is relatively new to have both, i.e., impact factor and citations. It is too early to expect citations for an article that was published on 14-Nov-2013 (or yet to be published?).
\n
Anyhow, thank you once again for your comments.
Responded by
Dr. Chetan D Poduri on 16 Nov 2013 03:42:04 AM
I don not think that this "mini-review" on MAPs is sufficiently complete and interesting to deserve publication
Posted by Anonymous reviewer on 11 Nov 2013 11:01:27 AM GMT
Thank you for your comments.
Responded by
Dr. Chetan D Poduri on 12 Nov 2013 02:21:09 AM
Hi,
Ihave gone through manuscript and found suitable for publication. But there are many grammatical error in whole mansucript it should be corrected before acceptance.
Best
Vijai Singh
Posted by Anonymous reviewer on 08 Nov 2013 04:03:08 AM GMT
Thank you.
Responded by
Dr. Chetan D Poduri on 09 Nov 2013 02:26:47 PM
General Comments
The minireview on medicinal and aromatic plants has endeavored to review the current status of this category of plants. The author has attempted very nicely to document the various approaches that are being currently attempted for their conservation, which is indeed a very important issue and a burning topic in this modern day and age. Importantly, herbal or traditional medicine is an area which is very recently being tapped into for its commercial potential. However, with increasing business by way of exports, there is an increased need for better methods of regulation in order to ensure better quality control and quality assurance. All in all this minireview is a good attempt at addressing this complex issue. I feel that this review can be published in WebmedCentral Plus with the under-mentioned modifications.
Specific Comments
1. INTRODUCTION; 1st Paragraph; Line 5: Delete "Anno Domini (AD)"
2. THE APPROACH; Recognition; 1st Paragraph; Line 6: Delete "recognizing" and retain "recognising", since this is the British style of spelling and the journal in published from UK.
3. THE APPROACH; Recognition; 2nd Paragraph; Line 1: Same as above.
4. CONCLUSION; Line 6: Delete "AD".
Posted by Anonymous reviewer on 31 Oct 2013 01:53:51 PM GMT
Thank you for the comments.
Responded by
Dr. Chetan D Poduri on 09 Nov 2013 02:27:39 PM
WebmedCentral
The first line of the manuscript claims that the "natural products from medicinal and aromativc plants (MAP)s have lesser harmful effects. I do not believe in this sentence. It should be examined on case by case basis.
The paper do not present sufficient information to be regarded as a "review". It is written in general terms, do not offer any critism, comparison, etc.
The number of the references are far too short than a typical review paper.
What I would understand from a "mini -review" would be in depth review of a very well defined highly focused subject. Authors are speaking about 50 000 to 70 000 species, and only referring the readers to the databases, without contributing anything.
I believe that this paper do not match the WebMed Central + standards, and should be rejected.
Thank you for the comments.
\nTo satiate your comments I perhaps take refuge in the sentence that appears in the data sources and overview section: \"...this article overlooks many important publications and approaches, the readers must keep in mind that this article is intended to be a mini-review and every review have their limitations...\"
\nAs far as matching the WebMedCentral+ standards, one should be clear on the relative term \'standards\'. What is standard to one individual may be substandard to others.
\nAnyhow, in the scientific literature, perhaps standards are set by the impact factors and citations. WebMedCentral+ is relatively new to have both, i.e., impact factor and citations. It is too early to expect citations for an article that was published on 14-Nov-2013 (or yet to be published?).
\nAnyhow, thank you once again for your comments.
Responded by Dr. Chetan D Poduri on 16 Nov 2013 03:42:04 AM