Journal of Advances in Medical and Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2394-1111,Vol.: 5, Issue.: 1
Positive Anti-Cadmium Poisoning Anti-Oxidant Effects of Moringa Seed Oil and Cashew Nut Oil in Juvenile Wistar Rats Hippocampus
O. D. Omotoso1, J. O. Owolabi2*, H. B. Akpan3, B. J. Dare4, E. A. Ashamu5 and S. A. Adelakun5 1Department of Anatomy, Kogi State University, PMB 1008, Anyigba, Nigeria. 2Department of Anatomy, Ben Carson Sr. School of Medicine, Babcock University, Nigeria. 3Department of Anatomy, College of Health Sciences, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Nigeria. 4Department of Anatomy, Bingham University, PMB 005, Karu, Nigeria. 5Department of Anatomy, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, PMB 4000 Ogbomoso, Nigeria.
1. Up to 6th August 2012, all SDI journals followed strict double-blind review policy to ensure neutral evaluation. During this review process identity of both, the authors and reviewers are kept hidden to ensure the unbiased evaluation. More information is available at this link.
2. We have migrated to transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system (Detailed general information is available at this link). The identity of the authors and reviewers will be revealed to each other during this review process. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers (Example Link). If reviewers do not want to reveal their identities, we will honour that request. In that case, only the review reports will be published as ‘anonymous reviewer report’.
3. Additionally ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ greatly helps in ‘continuity and advancement of science’. We firmly believe that all the files related to peer review of a manuscript are valuable and hold an important place in the continuity and advancement of science. If publishers publish the peer review reports along with published papers, this process can result in savings of thousands of hours of future authors during experiments, manuscript preparation, etc. by minimising the common errors after reading these previously published peer review reports. Therefore, as per our new official policy update, if the manuscript is published, all peer review reports will be available to the readers. All files (like the original manuscript, comments of the reviewers, revised manuscript, and editorial comment (if any)) related to the peer review, will be available in “Review history” link along with the published paper (Example Link).
4. Additionally, we believe that one of the main objectives of peer review system is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Normally we try to publish the ‘average marks (out of 10)’ a manuscript received at initial peer review stage and at final publication stage to record its history of improvement during peer review. This process further increases the transparency. It is more important to record the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’ than claiming that 'our peer review system is perfect’. Therefore, these transparent processes (i.e. publication of review history files and scores of a particular manuscript) additionally give a clear idea of the strength and weakness of a published paper to the readers. This process enhances the chances of proper use of the result of research (and or reduces the chances of misuse of the weakness of the findings of the paper). Thus this transparent process may prove to be highly beneficial for the society in the long run.
Specific Comment
Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 6.75/10
Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 8.5/10
| Stage | Description | File 1 | File 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 1 | Original Manuscript | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Peer review report_1(Hocine Benabid, Algeria) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Peer review report_2(Myrene Roselyn D’souza, India) | File 1 | File 2 |
| Stage 2 | Peer review report_3(Maahara Valverde, Mexico) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Peer review report_4(Heba Mohamed Mohamed Abdou, Egypt) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Peer review report_5(Atef Mahmoud Mahmoud Attia, Egypt) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Peer review report_6(Kanchana Usuwanthim, Thailand) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Revised MS v1 and Feedback v1 | File 1 | File 2 |
| Stage 2 | Re-Review report_1_v1 (Hocine Benabid, Algeria) (No Response) | NA | NA |
| Stage 2 | Re-Review report_2_v1(Myrene Roselyn D’souza, India) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Re-Review report_3_v1(Maahara Valverde, Mexico) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Re-Review report_4_v1(Heba Mohamed Mohamed Abdou, Egypt) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Re-Review report_5_v1(Atef Mahmoud Mahmoud Attia, Egypt) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Re-Review report_6_v1(Kanchana Usuwanthim, Thailand) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Revised MS v2 and Feedback v2 | File 1 | File 2 |
| Stage 2 | Re-Review report_1_v2 (Hocine Benabid, Algeria) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Re-Review report_2_v2(Myrene Roselyn D’souza, India) (NA) | NA | NA |
| Stage 2 | Re-Review report_3_v2(Maahara Valverde, Mexico) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Re-Review report_4_v2(Heba Mohamed Mohamed Abdou, Egypt) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Re-Review report_5_v2(Atef Mahmoud Mahmoud Attia, Egypt) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Re-Review report_6_v2(Kanchana Usuwanthim, Thailand) | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 2 | Revised MS v3 and Feedback v3 | File 1 | File 2 |
| Stage 3 | Comment_Editor_1_v1 | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 3 | Revised MS v4 and Feedback v4 | File 1 | File 2 |
| Stage 3 | Comment_Editor_1_v2 | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 3 | Revised MS v5 and Feedback v5 | File 1 | File 2 |
| Stage 3 | Comment_Editor_1_v3 | File 1 | NA |
| Stage 3 | Revised MS v6 and Feedback v6 | File 1 | File 2 |
| Stage 3 | Comment_Editor_2_v1 | File 1 | NA |