ATOM INDONESIA JOURNAL
Editor’s Report
Article No. : #403
Title of Paper : Profile of Mibi Liquid Phase Radiopharmaceutical For Myocardial Imaging Referee Name :
Comment on Descriptions 1. Title
[ X ] Appropriate [ ] Should be changed
2. Abstract
Yes[ X ] No[ ] Is the length reasonable?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Is it an appropriate summary of the content?
3. Main Text
Yes[ X ] No[ ] Is there anything new in this work?
Yes[ X ] No[ ] Is the relation to previous studies adequately stated?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Are the assumption(s) and/or method(s) described comprehensively?
Yes[ ] No[ X ] Are the new results adequately emphasized?
Line # Referee’s Comments
47-52 Please state more clearly in the introduction section the novelty of this work compared with the previous research
99-109 Ethical clearance should be stated in the experimental method section since the determination of ratio target and non target was done using animal model.
151-
154 The reactionof MIBI complex is not quite clear. Please fix it 146-
150 Cite the related references 182-
183 Compare the results obtained with other related results and cite the references 206-
207 ....ratio for formulation 2 and formulation 1 were 8.22 and 5.46 respectively 209-
210 ....4.32 and 10.99 respectively
214 Fig 6. The quality of the figure was not good enough. Please fix it
Results and discussion section should be explained more comprehensively since the analysis of the data is too short. The resuts obtained from this work should be compared with other related results. Please cite the references.
The references should be written as the format template for Atom Indonesia.
It would be much better if the author could add up more references by providing current references published within 5 years.
Please refer to the instruction to authors.
Final comments and recommendations:
The manuscript requires additional works in term of context and content. The results obtained
from this work should be compared to the related results obtained by other researchers. It
would be better if the references used were primary and recent relevant references. The
quality of the figures and equations are not good enough therefore need some improvement..
[ X ] Accepted with minor revision [ ] Major Revision is required [ ] Rejected
ATOM INDONESIA JOURNAL 2nd Editor’s Report
Article No. : #403
Title of Paper : PROFILE OF MIBI LIQUID PHASE RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL FOR
MYOCARDIAL IMAGING
Referee Name :
Comment on Descriptions 1. Title
[ ] Appropriate [ ] Should be changed
2. Abstract
Yes[ ] No[ ] Is the length reasonable?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Is it an appropriate summary of the content?
3. Main Text
Yes[ ] No[ ] Is there anything new in this work?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Is the relation to previous studies adequately stated?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Are the assumption(s) and/or method(s) described comprehensively?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Are the new results adequately emphasized?
Line # Referee’s Comments
Final comments and recommendations:
The main issues of this article:
Animal model was used during the experiment without ethical clearance, since the research was conducted in 2009 before ethics commission (KEPPHP BATAN) was established in 2011.
Publication without ethical clearance might be a big issue and could impact to the journal reputation. Deep consideration related to the impact should be taken.
Recommendation to author :
1. The references have not been written as the format
This paper is recommended to be [ ] Accepted without further revision [ ] Accepted with minor revision [ ] Major Revision is required [ ] Rejected
ATOM INDONESIA JOURNAL 3rd Editor’s Report
Article No. : #403
Title of Paper : Profile of MIBI Liquid Phase Radiopharmaceutical for Myocardial Imaging
Referee Name :
Comment on Descriptions 1. Title
[ ] Appropriate [ ] Should be changed
2. Abstract
Yes[ ] No[ ] Is the length reasonable?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Is it an appropriate summary of the content?
3. Main Text
Yes[ ] No[ ] Is there anything new in this work?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Is the relation to previous studies adequately stated?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Are the assumption(s) and/or method(s) described comprehensively?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Are the new results adequately emphasized?
Line # Referee’s Comments
Final comments and recommendations:
The manuscript must be using the current literatures (80% of the references should be published within 5 years [2010-2015] and from the primary
reference sources/journals).
This paper is recommended to be [ ] Accepted without further revision [ ] Accepted with minor revision [ ] Major Revision is required [ ] Rejected
