In-vivo and in-vitro evaluation of

novel bone substitute composed

of ECM [ExtraCellularMatrix ] and
nHA [nanoHydroxyApatite]
by SRINIVASA RAO KUNA

Submission date: 22-Jul-2019 03:18PM (UTC+0100)

Submission ID: 109048536
File name: Kuna_Srinivasa_Rao.docx (29.15K)
Word count: 2274
Character count: 13330
 1

6
 7

10

11

12

13

14
 15

16

17

18
 19

20

21
 22

23

24
25
26
In-vivo and in-vitro evaluation of novel bone substitute composed
of ECM [ExtraCellularMatrix ] and nHA [nanoHydroxyApatite]
ORIGINALITY REPORT

69 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
55%
INTERNET SOURCES
46%
PUBLICATIONS
28%
STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
www.i-scholar.in
Internet Source 32%
2
Wenhao Wang, Kelvin W.K. Yeung. "Bone grafts
and biomaterials substitutes for bone defect
15%
repair: A review", Bioactive Materials, 2017
Publication

3
repub.eur.nl
Internet Source 7%
4
aiche.onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Internet Source 4%
5
ispcd.org
Internet Source 3%
6
link.springer.com
Internet Source 2%
7
www.thieme-connect.de
Internet Source 1%
8
www.josr-online.com
Internet Source 1%
 9
www.spineinfo.ru
Internet Source 1%
10
preview-bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com
Internet Source 1%
11
Submitted to Indian Institute of Space Science
and Technology
1%
Student Paper

12
Submitted to Bogazici University
Student Paper 1%
13
preview-
bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com
<1%
Internet Source

Exclude quotes Off Exclude matches < 10 words

Exclude bibliography Off
In-vivo and in-vitro evaluation of novel bone substitute composed
of ECM [ExtraCellularMatrix ] and nHA [nanoHydroxyApatite]
GRADEMARK REPORT

FINAL GRADE GENERAL COMMENTS

Instructor

0
Your introduction does identify the need for research
but I'm concerned that it may have omitted some
current research, knowing how large the field of
investigation is and how financially important.

/100 Your review of the literature is superficial at best and

you have not passed that learning outcome. I would
expect this section to be fat more comprehensive. It
should also include a description of the databases you
have search, the terms you used and how you
identified the papers you have included in your review.
You have failed LO1.

Your study aim is fine, but I would expect multiple

objectives that explain how you will meet the aim, not
just one general objective that doesn't provide enough
detail.

You are lacking a section that critically evaluates the

methodology you will be using. What form of study are
you proposing and how is it appropriate based on the
general research literature? This means you are failing
LO2

In your methods section, you need to provide details

about the in vivo studies. You also need to show that
you have considerd the practical aspects of the project,
so at the moment are failing LO5 - I cant see anything
in you proposal about getting an animal licence from
the Home Office for example, or where your funding is
coming from.
 You also havent considered the ethical implications -
who will approve this for example and how long will that
take - failing LO 6

With regards the proposal, one problem is the lack of

references supporting much of the information you
provide. You need to provide supporting references for
any information that wouldnt be considered common
knowledge.

A major area of concern is that you have copied large

proportions of the proposal from two sources. The first
is from a paper by Wang and Yeung - indicated using
in text comments. You have made almost no attempt
at rewording and have not cited or referenced the paper
as a source.

The second is from an internet source www.i-

scholar.in. There is a large proportion of text
throughout the proposal that attributable to this source,
again without citation or reference. It is indicated in the
file as the number 1 source and highlighted in red.

This is classed as academic malpractice and as a

result it is not appropriate to give the essay a mark.
You will shortly receive notification about the process
that will be followed to address this issue.

Please
read: https://www.edgehill.ac.uk/documents/academic-
regulations-2018-19-appendix-8-procedures-relating-to-
academic-malpractice-2018-19/

First Marker: Philip Welsby

PAGE 1

Comment 1
Quite a different project proposal to your classmates. From a practical perspective, do you have the
facilities to undertake this project?
 Comment 2
Globally? In the UK? In India?

Comment 3
You need to cite the source of this information

Comment 4
Reference supporting this?

Comment 5
Need references for this information

Comment 6
Again references needed to support this information

PAGE 2

Comment 7
While its good to see a reference cited, this is nearly 20 years out of date and so cannot really reflect
the field as it is currently.

Comment 8
Very informal and typically wouldnt be used in academic writing

Comment 9
Good - establishes what it available

Comment 10
You cant finish with a 1993 reference relating to others that are more recent - e.g. Stok et al 2011

Comment 11
This section lacks citations

Comment 12
This section is copied directly word for word from Wang and Yeung without citation or inclusion in the
reference list.
 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452199X17300464?cv%3D1%26via%3Dihub

Comment 13
should be written in 3rd person or passive voice

Comment 14
Is this the aim?

PAGE 3

Comment 15
Again, an entire section without references

Comment 16
Not really relevant

Comment 17
You cannot make this statement as current practice and support it with a reference thats 23 years
old

Comment 18
This is another section copied from Wang and Yeung

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452199X17300464?cv%3D1%26via%3Dihub

PAGE 4

Comment 19
Quite vague - for what group of patients, in what way etc.

Comment 20
aims - should not be complete

Comment 21
I would expect multiple objectives that detail how you will meet the aim.
PAGE 5

Comment 22
This is sufficiently clear for me to understand the process for preparation of the sample

Comment 23
This information could be in an appendix

Comment 24
Given the type of proposal you have suggested, I would expect details about each of these methods
so that I can be sure they are feasible

PAGE 6

Comment 25
Where are you getting the funding? Where are your labs and who holds the Home Office licence for
the animal work?

PAGE 7

Comment 26
Check the Harvard referencing guide on Blackboard as you have not correctly followed the style.

PAGE 8