7 Comments

Go to the profile of Yasin Ghulam
Yasin Ghulam over 1 year ago

Yes, the important section of the manuscript to be considered for publications as per findings.

Go to the profile of Muhammad Naeem Nizam
Muhammad Naeem Nizam over 1 year ago

Results and discussion section of a manuscript should be precise and clearly described.

Go to the profile of Vinícius Medina Kern
Vinícius Medina Kern about 1 year ago

About previous section on Method (no option to comment):
The option is binary - either request the change or do not request the change. My logic to answer (wrongly) was: is it better to request more experiments (probably excessively) or to say nothing, when I know the paper could be far stronger? Maybe it's a language issue, but it would be clear for me if there were three options (request more experiments, do not request but suggest, say nothing).

Go to the profile of Jerry Togo
Jerry Togo 10 months ago

I felt the same way too. The work of a reviewer is to make sure the data presented is factual and also complete. Suggesting that the author do more experiments to male his work whole is more an advantage. It helps improve his/her paper. Or maybe if the reviewer is asked to do so ie suggest ways to make the paper better then he is obligated to suggest these new experiments and method ( the point here being what does the editor require of the reviewer

Go to the profile of Kamuyu Mwai
Kamuyu Mwai 8 months ago

Indeed, the whole publication should atleast be answering the research study in totality or opening-up to future discussion (but within the subject margins)

Go to the profile of gaurav kapoor
gaurav kapoor 6 months ago

Result and discussion should be clearly define the research output

Go to the profile of Jürgen Weippert
Jürgen Weippert about 1 month ago

Concerning the previous question regarding "broadening experiments": I would not demand such experiments, but I would definitely put them in as an option. Of course you should never shut down a paper because of a "generalness issue".