General View
The paper (research) by Okay, Karacik, Serden, Henkelmann, Bernhoft, and Schramm (2008) has numerous mistakes and errors which are consistent throughout, and which may need correction before publication. It seeks to assess samples for the concentration of PCBs and PCDD/Fs, with a view of the recommended limits. In general, the paper contains important knowledge, information and guidelines relating to the subject matter under investigation. It is arranged properly, with subheadings to discuss the various objects, which is acceptable for a clear research paper.
These sections include the most important ones such as results and discussions, analytical methods and sampling details. However, it lacks a systematic flow of information and it’s mainly disorganized. The connection from one section to another is lacking which disrupts the flow of the paper. Much irrelevant information is provided that kills readers concentration and motivation to read through the paper. The paper lacks originality with many long quotations from other authors, although this reveals that it has employed strong background information and correlated it to other works. The topic of the paper is ambiguous.
Though it touches on the major issues of the paper, its fails to provide an adequate description of key words describing exactly what the paper is all about. Use of acronyms in the title of the paper makes it to lack clarity and complicated.
Other sections of the paper (apart from topic) that is abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussions, acknowledgments, references and appendices are reviewed in sub–headings as follows.
Abstract
The abstract fails to summarize the major aspects of the entire paper. It gives the purpose of the paper which is paramount in this section. There are no adequate outlines of methods and experimental design used. A basic description of methodology and key techniques used is lacking. The abstract does clearly state the major finding but excludes including the quantitative results that answers some of the questions asked in the objectives of the paper. If readers were to use such abstract, definitely they would have gotten the answer regarding the results of the analysis.
Introduction
Unlike other sections of the paper, introduction is more precise and suitable for the research work. It establishes the context of the work reported. It gives general information of the paper that later narrows down to specific problem being studied that is, to provide an overview of contamination situation with respect to PCBs and PCDD/Fs in sediments and mussels sampled from Istanbul. The authors feature, in citation, works related to removal of the components under investigation from food materials, e.g. Bruzy and Hites, 1995 and Pandelova et al., 2006.
Materials and methods
This section describes how the study was done. Though this section describes how the study was carried out, it contains much unnecessary information that should be summarized. The sampling design is shown but should be rather brief and clear only describing the fine and essential details of how the study was structured, the protocol for collecting the data and how the data was analysed. The subheadings under the materials and methods make the section organised, which gives the reader understanding of the logical flow of the experiment. The units in the section; that is sampling, analysis, determination and statistical analysis, makes the section orderly and appropriate. The quantitative details provided in the section are essential since they make the paper more relevant.
Results and Discussion
The results of the study have been presented using tables, figures and discussion. Thus, the reader can link the results with tables and get a clear outline or connection illustratively. Use of tables and figures is therefore acceptable. However, there is too much interpretation of the results that make the section lengthy. The section highlights the answers to the questions investigated, which are important in the section.
There is a problem of repetition in paragraph structure in the section. Much information is repeated which makes it imprecise. Discussion interprets results highlighting what is already known in the subject being investigated, a major essential stage in the section. Though the discussion connects with the introduction, it unnecessarily repeats the introduction and fails to tell clearly the study progress from the introduction. Generally, the results and discussion brings a new understanding of the problem investigated, which is recommendable in the paper.
Acknowledgement
This part of the paper is appropriate and does not require any major changes during editing. The researcher clearly appreciates the help from other people and their works that have been of importance in carrying out the study.
References Section
The references utilized for this research paper is acceptable because they are credible (most) and link to the understanding of the subject under discussion. For instance, Lauenstein and Daskalakis, (1998) and Chase et al., (2001) help to further understand the utilization of mussels for investigating the presence of the compounds under investigation in food materials, and the reader can link up to that. In this section, the references cited are arranged alphabetically, though the number of this literature material cited is too much. This section is important as it recognizes patents and copyrights of academic materials published by other researchers and writers. This section of the paper however is not rich enough as its only sites materials, mainly from one source– textbooks and journals.
Appendices
This section is for additional information that would otherwise burden the body of the paper. It provides information that further clarifies statements in various part of the paper. The tables in the section are too complex and if the writer could have another simplified format (like pie chart) to represent the information this would be more appropriate. The key words that are inserted just below after abstract could be suitable in appendices section.
Inclusion, the paper should be accepted though with a major revision during editing closely following the review done.
References
Bruzy, P., and Hites, A. (1995). Estimating the atmospheric deposition of polychlorinated 391 dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans from soil. Environ. Sci. Technol, 29, 2090-2098.
Chase, E., Jones, H., Hennigar, P., Sowles, J., Harding, H., Freeman, K., Wells, G., Krahforst, C., Coombs, K., Crawford, R., Pederson, J., Taylor, D. (2001). Gulfwatch: monitoring spatial and temporal patterns of trace metal and organic contaminants in the Gulf of Maine (1991-1997) with the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis L. Mar. Pollut.Bull, 42, 491-505.
Lauenstein ,G., Daskalakis, D. (1998). U.S. Long-term coastal contaminant temporal 454 trends determined from mollusk monitoring programs, 1965-1993. Mar. Pollut. Bull, 37, 6-455.
Okay, O., Karacik, B., Serden, B., Henkelmann, B., Bernhoft, S., and Schramm, K. (2008). PCB and PCDD/F in sediments and mussels of the Istanbul Strait (Turkey). Chemosphere.
Pandelova, M., Henkelmann, B., Roots, O., Simm, M., Benfenati, E., and Schramm, W. (2006). Levels of PCDD/F in Baltic fish in different age groups. Organohal. Comp, 68, 1932- 934.