Human and Animal Studies in Craniofacial Embryology Enrich Human Postnatal Craniofacial Insight Differently

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for

researchers?

A: Excellent

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Very good

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Very good

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good

Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Very good

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Very good

Comments: The Summary section thoroughly analyses the significance of craniofacial research in embryology and fetal pathology by investigating human and animal developmental biology and comparing the similarities between prenatal and postnatal development which highlights the importance of prenatal registration for postnatal diagnostics.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very good

Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Very good

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good

Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Excellent

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good

Comments:

·       The last sentence of the section “Prenatal” of the “Kallmann Syndrome” under “Theme 9: Fetal Pathology” under the “Section 1 Human embryological and fetal pathological studies” does not make sense. Hence, this sentence should be rephrased.

·       The 3^rd sentence of the “Implement new methods in fetal pathology from other medical disciplines” under “Theme 9: Fetal Pathology” under the “Section 1 Human embryological and fetal pathological studies” does not make sense. Hence, this sentence should be rephrased.

Further comments on the paper

Comments: This review article is divided into 3 sections. The first section focuses on the normal and pathological development in a human fetus, conducted on human tissue in the period 1970-2005 at the department of orthodontics, Copenhagen. The second section investigates and describes the developmental biology of a number of craniofacial disorders on different animals and the third section compares the findings in human and animal experimental studies which aids pre and postnatal craniofacial diagnostics as well as postnatal treatment. This study calls for further research on craniofacial embryology in human and animal models.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Corrections - Suitable for publishing after corrections

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team