2 рецензии на статью "Implicit and explicit memory in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: a case-control study"
Результаты
Первая рецензия - замечания на переработку статьи. Вторая рецензия - рекомендовать к публикации.
Комментарии (отзыв)
Comments on the article 1. Why do the authors believe that the sample size is sufficient for the credibility of the results obtained? Has the pre-required sample size been determined? 2. The stimuli in each of the 2 experiments were presented in 6 blocks. What was the duration of each of the 5 intervals between blocks in the experiments? What was the duration of each session for the each participant? What was the time interval between the first and the second experiment? 3. How exactly were the error rates (number of omissions) calculated? For example, you wrote: “(mean number of errors in R1imp and R6imp*100)/108”. Why did you put in mean number of errors, but not just "number of errors"? The same question concerning omissions. This is not logical! 4. In the line 199-200: M ± SD = 553.02 ± 0.02 ms. SD=0.02 the value is incredibly small. Needs to be checked! 5. Figure 1 repeats Figure 2. It is necessary to replace it with the correct graph! 6. Figure 2 Reaction times (RTs) of participants with ASD (squares) – but in fact there are circles instead of squares. You have to fix it. 7. Extensive language proof reading is needed.
Комментарии (отзыв)
1. Why do the authors believe that the sample size is sufficient for the credibility of the results obtained? Has the pre-required sample size been determined?
2. The stimuli in each of the 2 experiments were presented in 6 blocks. What was the duration of each of the 5 intervals between blocks in the experiments? What was the duration of each session for the each participant? What was the time interval between the first and the second experiment?
3. How exactly were the error rates (number of omissions) calculated? For example, you wrote:
“(mean number of errors in R1imp and R6imp*100)/108”.
Why did you put in mean number of errors, but not just "number of errors"? The same question concerning omissions. This is not logical!
4. In the line 199-200: M ± SD = 553.02 ± 0.02 ms. SD=0.02 the value is incredibly small. Needs to be checked!
5. Figure 1 repeats Figure 2. It is necessary to replace it with the correct graph!
6. Figure 2 Reaction times (RTs) of participants with ASD (squares) – but in fact there are circles instead of squares. You have to fix it.
7. Extensive language proof reading is needed.