Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeReferee Comments: Referee 1
Posted by PLOS_ONE_Group on 12 Jun 2007 at 13:59 GMT
Reviewer 1's Review
“The paper deals with an interesting topic. The authors tackling a difficult task however; manuscript needs considerable work to improve quality and clarity. Paper should be informative, precise and brief. Unfortunately, this paper does not possess these attributes. The most important limitations of the present study are: its luck of consistency, erroneous terminology use, unclear sentences in the text. Tables and figures should be reorganized.”
N.B. These are the general comments made by the reviewer when reviewing this paper in light of which the manuscript was revised. Specific points addressed during revision of the paper are not shown.
RE: Referee Comments: Referee 1
RHNi replied to PLOS_ONE_Group on 18 Jun 2007 at 12:34 GMT
It is always interesting to take part of reviewers' comments, but in this particular case it appears to me that the post was made for a purpose. What was it?
RHN