Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Screening of potential microorganisms from pharmaceutical effluence capable of degrading environmental pollutants
This article has been declined for publication by the WikiJournal of Science.
It is archived here as a record. Discussion can be viewed below.
First submitted:
Declined:
Article text
QID: Q122691792
Suggested (provisional) preprint citation format:
Anonymous until published. "Screening of potential microorganisms from pharmaceutical effluence capable of degrading environmental pollutants". WikiJournal Preprints. Wikidata Q122691792.
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Reviewers: (comments)
Article information
This article has been declined for publication by the WikiJournal of Science.
It is archived here as a record. Discussion can be viewed below.
Submission withdrawn[edit source]
Comments by Andrew Leung ,
These editorial comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
Authors wished to withdraw this submission. Author requested deletion of this preprint but was denied as they have agreed to irrevocably release the text under CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. In the interest of transparency, I have provided the following comments to one of the author, which this author did not respond or address despite multiple follow-ups.
General comments:
- The references should refer to where the statement was made, not inserted at the end of each paragraph (as seen in introduction and results sections)
- Please elaborate where the pharmaceutical effluents were obtained. For example, can you give the location and date (or season)? Can you explain that, after incubation, how are the "best 4 species" determined and selected for identification"? Is it by highest highest effluent waste concentration? ATP count?
- The results & discussion section is quite weak. Can you elaborate your results interpretation further? How do you interpret the findings in Figure 2? We need you to focus more on comparing your study and contrasting with similar pharmaceutical effluent or wastewater studies, not just mention them in passing.
- Conclusion was very brief. Please expand by adding details that are relevant and related to your study. For example, you mentioned that environmental conditions can be optimized but it was not clear to the reader which conditions.
Comments specifically related to references:
- Treatability of Pharmaceutical Wastewater by Using Combined Ultrasound Cavitation and Persulfate Process. This is a preprint and has not been been peer reviewed by a journal.
- Bioremediation-Waste Water Treatment. This paper is published by OMICS, a well-known predatory open access journal. Please use another suitable reference or adjust your sentences that refer to this paper accordingly.
- TREATABILITY STUDY OF FENTON ACTIVATED CARBON CATALYTICAL OXIDATION FOR PHARMACEUTICAL WASTE WATER TRATMENT. I have strong reservation about the quality of this paper and lack of review process by the publishing journal. For example, the publisher is currently advertising acceptance status within 1 day and paper published within 2 days. Furthermore, the publisher failed to catch the glaring typo in the title ("tratment" when it should be "treatment") suggests that there was no peer review or editorial processes and likely to be a predatory open access publisher.