Open Access Publisher
www.netjournals.org E-mail: [email protected] Net Journals © 2014
Advancement in Medicinal Plant Research
Reviewers Guide PART A: Reviewer information
SECTION I
Reviewer’s Name Henik Sukorini, Ph.D
E-mail [email protected]
Institution University of Muhammadiyah Malang
Manuscript Number AMPR-2014-028
Title
Evaluation of Antioxidant, Total Phenols and Flavonoids Content and Antimicrobial Actvities of Artocarpus altilis
(Breadfruit) of Pulp, Peel and Whole of underutilized tropical fruit extracts
Date Sent to Reviewer
Date Expected from Reviewer
Area of Specialization Plant extracts, Plant Pathology, Microbiology
PART B: Reviewer evaluations
SECTION II: Comments per Section of Manuscript
General comment
The way to write was confusing. It was hard to understand. The author should follow the journal guidance. The manuscript should be checked by a person who English as her/his mother tongue, because many grammar mistakes.
Introduction
In the introduction part, unclear state and many un necessary parts for example the extraction (60-68), the microorganism ( line 69-73). The Introduction should write about what are the problems and opportunity of medicinal plant? What the
potential of the plant is? Is there any research before?, etc.
Methodology
Un clear and not detail. In 86…how many g or kg each sample was collected. Plant extraction…how many ml? How many g of grounded material were used? How many ml of solvent?. Please check all the material and
Open Access Publisher
www.netjournals.org E-mail: [email protected] Net Journals © 2014 Results In the result and discussion part, the material and the
methods should not re state.
Discussion
The results should be discussed in relation to the Introduction. Give
comment on results and indicate possible sources of error. Please add place the study in the context of other work reported in the literature.
Bibliography/References Please write as same as jounal guidance
Others Title and content of tables should same(566, plant parts or crude extract)
Decision Major revision
SECTION III - Please rate the following: (1 = Excellent) (2 = Good) (3 = F air) (4 = poor)
Originality 3
Contribution to the Field 2 Technical Quality 3 Clarity of Presentation 4 Depth of Research 2
SECTION IV - Recommandation: (Kindly mark with an X)
Accept as it is
Requires Minor Corrections Requires Moderate Revision
Requires Major Revision
The manuscript was not clear writing, many grammar mistakes, hard to understand.
Submit to Another Publication such as
Open Access Publisher
www.netjournals.org E-mail: [email protected] Net Journals © 2014
SECTION V: Additional Comments
Please add any additional comments (including comments/suggestions regarding online
Open Access Publisher
