OJVR Referee Forms

The value of the information provided is confined to provide one further aid to actually design an inhibitor for pORF3. The work is not particularly innovative but was checked (not done before). Although the selection of templates (30% similarity) was not particularly high, the significance of the disease could justify publication of this information. The selection criteria (templates) was relatively complete. The modeling strategy and its verification procedure (+ visualization) appeared comprehensive and thorough. The work is well written, concise and to the point. The Figures and tables are adequate. No major claims/findings are reported. Accept as is.

BACK TO MAIN

©1996-2009 All Rights Reserved. Online Journal of Bioinformatics. You may not store these pages in any form except for your own personal use. All other usage or distribution is illegal under international copyright treaties. Permission to use any of these pages in any other way besides the before mentioned must be gained in writing from the publisher. This article is exclusively copyrighted in its entirety to OJB publications. This article may be copied once but may not be, reproduced or re-transmitted without the express permission of the editors. Linking: To link to this page or any pages linking to this page you must link directly to this page only here rather than put up your own page.

Online Journal of Bioinformatics

REFEREE FORM

Please complete and remit to Editorial office, Online Journal of Bioinformatics

Author(s): Rathi B, Naik S, Sarangi AN, Aggarwal R

ID Number: (to be assigned by OJB if not shown)
Title: Prediction of 3-dimensional structure of ORF3 protein of genotype 1 hepatitis E virus

The Editorial board must ensure that the OJB publishes only papers which are scientifically sound. To achieve this objective, the referees are requested to assist the Editors by making an assessment of a paper submitted for publication by:

(a) Writing a report as described in GENERAL STATEMENTS (Below),
(b} Check the boxes shown below under 1. and 2. ( YES or NO) [N.B.A "NO" assessment must be supported by specific comment in the report.
(c) Make a recommendation under 3.

The Editor-in-Chief would appreciate hearing from any referee who feels that he/she will be unable to review a manuscript within four weeks.

2. CRITERIA FOR JUDGEMENT (Mark "Yes" or "No").

General statements

What is this work about? This work describes a 3-dimensional model for the HEV ORF3 protein using MODELLER program based on a homology modeling method.

Does it add any value to current knowledge (in this area of bioinformatics)? The value of the information provided is confined to provide one further aid to actually design an inhibitor for pORF3.

Is it innovative?

Yes/No answers.

Is the work scientifically sound? Y

Is the work an original contribution NA
Are the conclusions justified on the evidence presented?
Is the work free of major errors in fact, logic or technique? Y
Is the paper clearly and concisely written? Y
Do you consider that the data provided on the care and use of animals (See Instructions to Contributors) is sufficient to establish that the animals used in the experiments were well looked after, that care was taken to avoid distress, and that there was no unethical use of animals? NR

2 PRESENTATION (Mark "Yes" or "No").

Does the title clearly indicate the content of the paper? Y
Does the abstract convey the essence of the article? Y
Are all the tables essential? Y
Are the figures and drawings of good quality? Y
Are the illustrations necessary for an understanding of the text? Y
Is the labelling adequate? Y

3. RECOMMENDATIONS(Mark one with an X)

Not suitable for publication in the OJB
Reassess after major changes
Reassess after suggested changes
Accept for publication with minor changes
Accept for publication without changes X

4. REPORT The value of the information provided is confined to provide one further aid to actually design an inhibitor for pORF3. The work is not particularly innovative but was checked (not done before). Although the selection of templates (30% similarity) was not particularly high, the significance of the disease could justify publication of this information. The selection criteria (templates) was relatively complete. The modeling strategy and its verification procedure (+ visualization) appeared comprehensive and thorough. The work is well written, concise and to the point. The Figures and tables are adequate. No major claims/findings are reported. Accept as is.

BACK TO MAIN