Nazroel.id – Setelah berhasil mempublikasikan artikel di jurnal internasional bereputasi, maka dengan sendirinya akan berdatangan undangan untuk mereview jurnal. Nah, bagaimanakan cara mereview jurnal internasional yang baik dan benar?

Sebetulnya cukup hanya memberikan komentar dari artikel/manuscript yang dikirim melalui sistem review jurnal secara online.

Contoh artikel tinjauan (review artikel) yang sebelumnya telah direview dan saat ini telah terbit

Berikut adalah hasil review sekaligus bisa dijadikan template untuk mereview artikel lainnya

This is a review of the manuscript entitled “Review on polymeric hydrogel membranes for wound dressing applications: History and development” submitted by Elbadawy et al. This manuscript presents the past and current efforts with a brief description on the featured properties of hydrogel membranes fabricated from biopolymers and synthetic ones for wound dressing applications. This manuscript could be a good contribution to science; however, addressing the problems raised in major points would improve the quality of this paper. Without these changes, I would not recommend the acceptance of this manuscript. Please see the following comments.

Major points

1) Introduction (page 3, line 10): The authors showed Fig. 1 that describes the number of published researches per year. However, no legends or information regarding the figure. For examples, methodology to collect the published research papers and topic or keyword of papers. In addition, this manuscript presents the current efforts on the featured properties of hydrogel membranes. Therefore, it would be better to add the number of published researches in 2016, excluding in December 2016.

2) Introduction (page 4, line 31): The authors introduced PVA-hybrid hydrogel membranes as the most frequently polymeric membrane candidate for wound dressings and covers. However, no explanation about the advantages of PVA compared to other compounds. The more detail about other polymeric membrane candidates for wound dressings is important, then compared to PVA. The authors should explain it briefly in the introduction and the detail in the artificial dressings section.

3) Review: The authors wrote in the introduction that this review explores mainly such polymers which previously blended with PVA for using as wound dressing application. In this review, no discussion about creating hybrid hydrogel with using PVA for some polymers such as collagen, keratin, proplast and carbon-based materials. The authors should explain the reason for this problems.

Minor point

• Page 2, line 39, hydrogels can swell and de-swell water in a reversible direction, probably should be “hydrogels have water swelling and de-swelling abilities in a reversible direction”.

• Page 5, line 49, ….layers have been revealed that for building…, probably “that” should be deleted.

• Page 9, line 29, …their use that, (gauze and gauze cotton composite) have much…, probably should be “…their use that they have much…”

• Page 10, line 12, …. of these materials is sometimes the donated skin part is inadequate, probably should be “…. of these materials is sometimes inadequate of donated skin part”.

artikel ini telah terbit di https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5315442/

Contoh lain untuk artikel penelitian (research artikel)

This is a review of the manuscript entitled “Improved bioavailability of β-cyclodextrin based curcumin formulation: in vitro and in vivo studies” submitted by Dethe et al.  This manuscript demonstrated that a newly developed cyclodextrin-based curcumin formulation, Curcuminoids BetaSorb® (CB) improved in vitro and in vivo bioavailability.  As the author said in the discussion, the comparison of bioavailability of β-cyclodextrin based curcuminoid complexes with unformulated curcuminoids in rats has not been reported. However, the author need to increase more experiment data to describe and confirm clearly the conclusion of the study. This study could be a good contribution to science; however, addressing the problems raised in major points would improve the quality of this paper. Without these changes, I would not recommend the acceptance of this manuscript. Please see the following comments.

Major points

1) Introduction: The authors wrote “CB is new formulation of curcuminoids and β-cyclodextrin”, “curcuminoids and β-cyclodextrin to form an inclusion or host–guest complex”, “curcuminoids enveloped in β-cyclodextrin as complex”. Curcumin is one of three major curcuminoids derived from turmeric. The authors should specify the compound of curcuminoids that formed a complex or an inclusion complex formation with β-cyclodextrin.

2) Materials: In the result of in vitro study, the authors wrote acetaminophen. Did you use this?

3) Methods : The authors should describe clearly the preparation method of UCE and CB. Did you use the same source of curcuminoids in UCE and CB? To compare these formulation, it is very important.

4) Methods : Additional control is necessary, pure curcumin can be used as control in all studies.

5) Methods :The authors must show or perform the characterization studies of UCE and CB by X-ray diffraction, Differential scanning calorimetry, Scanning electron microscope, FTIR, H-NMR, etc. The characterization can confirm the complex or inclusion complex formation of curcumin-β-cyclodextrin or other curcuminoids complex.

6) Methods : As mention in the discussion, “cyclodextrins improve the drug solubility and/or dissolution and also the drug permeability”. The author should show or perform solubility and dissolution studies of UCE and CB.

7) Methods : The authors must describe clearly how many experiment numbers in each studies?

8) Methods : Why the UCE was excluded in the in vitro study?

9) Results : The authors only showed 3 tables and 2 figures in this study, therefore it could not explain and confirm the purpose of this study very well. For example, why β-cyclodextrin can improve the bioavailability? In addition, tables 1 and 2 were not explained in the results sections. The authors should explain it.

Minor point

1) Page 9 line 44, ng/ml*h, it should be ng/mL.h

Artikel ini sepertinya ditolak dan tidak terbit karena penulis tidak mengikuti saran dari reviewernya.