Review Form Response 03/04/18, 10)27 PM

HOME ABOUT USER HOME BACK TO MAIN WEBSITE OPEN JOURNAL

SYSTEMS

Home > User > Reviewer > #115 > Review Form Response Journal Help

Review Form Response USER

You are logged in
as...
dhruvkumar-patel
Original Research / Brief Report Form My Profile
Log Out
Below are questions to help focus your review. If you have written extra notes, or
you have more information that does not fit in these boxes, please include them in
the further comments section near the bottom. N OT I F I C AT I O N S
View
If you have questions about the reviewing process, please don't hesitate to Manage
contact your junior editor, that's what they're there for.

GENERAL: Please include subjective observations on this submission, including

REVIEWER
content, relevance, reliability, and overall quality of the manuscript. *
Submissions
Active (1)
Archive (0)

FONT SIZE

EDITING: Did you find any problems with:

Grammar
Punctuation
Spelling
Word Use

EDITING: If yes to any of the above, can you elaborate on the errors, and if any
significant revisions are necessary?
*

TITLE: Is the title appropriate? Comment on length and fit with article.
*

Title: Please rate the title. *

Excellent (5/5)
Great (4/5)
Good (3/5)

http://msrj.chm.msu.edu/submit/index.php/MSRJ/reviewer/editReviewFormResponse/794/9 Page 1 of 5
Review Form Response 03/04/18, 10)27 PM

Sun-standard (2/5)
Poor (1/5)

ABSTRACT: Is the abstract consistent with the remainder of the manuscript? Is

the length appropriate? Are the pertinent details presented sufficiently and
concisely? Is it structured appropriately? *

ABSTRACT: Please rate the abstract *

Excellent (5/5)
Great (4/5)
Good (3/5)
Sub-standard (2/5)
Poor (1/5)

INTRODUCTION:

Does the introduction provide enough background information to understand the

topic?

Is the introduction concise?

Do they put the study in perspective with other studies and include relevance to
science or medicine?

Is the research questions appropriate and defined well?

Other comments for the introduction can be included here.

INTRODUCTION: Rate their research question *

Excellent (5/5)
Great (4/5)
Good (3/5)
Sub-standard (2/5)
Poor (1/5)

METHODS:

Are the groups clearly defined?

Is the sampling method described?

Are data collection procedures clear?

Are the methods explained sufficiently and concisely?

Is there enough detail that this could be repeated by other researchers?

Are the methods appropriate for the question they are asking?

Is this a novel methodological approach, or is it a valuable replication?

Is the design acceptable?

Do the authors describe how they analyze the results, is it appropriate? *

http://msrj.chm.msu.edu/submit/index.php/MSRJ/reviewer/editReviewFormResponse/794/9 Page 2 of 5
Review Form Response 03/04/18, 10)27 PM

METHODS: Please rate the methods.

*

Excellent (5/5)
Great (4/5)
Good (3/5)
Sub-standard (2/5)
Poor (1/5)

RESULTS: Are the results clearly presented?

Broken into sections appropriately?

Do the sections correlate with the methods, and do they effectively convey the
important information?

Are the results interpreted here, or left for the discussion?

Are there appropriate links to illustrations (tables and figures)?

RESULTS: Please rate the results section. *

Excellent (5/5)
Great (4/5)
Good (3/5)
Sub-standard (2/5)
Poor (1/5)

DISCUSSION:

Was the discussion informative and relevant?

Did the author provide a brief review of current

literature/knowledge/understanding of the topic?

Did the author comment on potential weaknesses and suggest ways that this
project could have been improved?

Does the discussion include generalizability and implications?

Discussion: Please provide an overall rating of the discussion. *

Excellent (5/5)
Great (4/5)
Good (3/5)
Sub-standard (2/5)
Poor (1/5)

CONCLUSIONS: Are conclusions presented? Are they appropriate to the case?

http://msrj.chm.msu.edu/submit/index.php/MSRJ/reviewer/editReviewFormResponse/794/9 Page 3 of 5
Review Form Response 03/04/18, 10)27 PM

Yes, conclusions are presented and they are consistent with the case
Yes, conclusions are presented, but they are not supported by the case
No conclusions are presented

LITERATURE REVIEW:

Was the manuscript well-researched?

Does the report build upon existing knowledge in the literature?

Have you looked through the sources and do you feel like the sources are used
apprpriately?

Are there enough sources?

LITERATURE REVIEW: Please provide an overall rating of the literature review. *

Excellent (5/5)
Great (4/5)
Good (3/5)
Sub-standard (2/5)
Poor (1/5)

Illustrations (Tables/Figures):

Are the illustrations clear and easy to understand?

Are the appropriate for explaining the results or information in the text?

Do the captions adequately explain the illustration in a concise manner?

Can the figures stand alone without the text of the manuscript?

If no illustrations, write in "N/A" or "not applicable".

ILLUSTRATIONS: Please rate the illustrations. *

Excellent (5/5)
Great (4/5)
Good (3/5)
Sub-standard (2/5)
Poor (1/5)
Not Applicable

What are some of the strengths of this paper, and how do they impact the
arguments, ability to understand/read the manuscript, and contribute to the field
of medicine? *

http://msrj.chm.msu.edu/submit/index.php/MSRJ/reviewer/editReviewFormResponse/794/9 Page 4 of 5
Review Form Response 03/04/18, 10)27 PM

What are the weaknesses of this article, and how can the authors improve their
argument, reasoning/rationale, implications for medicine, counter-arguments, etc?
*

What changes would need to be completed to be eligible for publication? *

STATISTICS: Does this manuscript require review by a statistician? *

Yes (Explain in further comments)

No
Unsure

Further comments or questions? *

FINAL PLAN: As a student reviewer, I believe that the Medical Student Research
Journal should assign the following status: *

Accept Without Revisions. Only superficial changes needed like minor

grammatical/spelling/formatting errors.
Accept With Revisions. The manuscript has some minor or major flaws that
require attention, but will be acceptable for publication after addressing the
concerns outlined in this review.
Resubmit. This manuscript fits within the scope of MSRJ, but requires
significant changes to be publishable. This paper should be required to restart the
submission process with another full editorial review before it can be considered
for publication.
Reject. This manuscript has serious flaws that cannot be addressed through
revision, or the content matter is outside the scope of MSRJ.

Save Close

* Denotes required field

http://msrj.chm.msu.edu/submit/index.php/MSRJ/reviewer/editReviewFormResponse/794/9 Page 5 of 5