On 2015 Oct 08, David A Coil commented:

This comment is cross-posted from the original article.

This is the first time I’ve commented on an article using this system, but this paper was so riddled with problems I felt that I had to start. “Respiratory” is mis-spelled in the title and the rest of the paper is in a similar vein. I understand that it is difficult to write in a foreign language, and that seeing “have your paper read by a native English speaker” is annoying. However, in this case the writing is so confusing as to be nonsensical in places. For example, I’ve read this sentence a dozen times and I still don’t know what it means “This reminder the potential network monitor of this method due to the lower detection limit of which VS culture based technology and the easy handling of the system.”

But what I really can’t understand how the spelling mistakes made it through editorial and peer review (starting with the title). Just a few examples easily found by any spell checker include “postion”, “microorgnisms”, “maliganant”, “leathal”, and “noncosomicol”. Not to mention random capitalization such as “Petri dish” and “petridish” in the same paragraph.

I won’t get into the lack of stats, the total lack of references to much of the related work in the field, and the fact that demonstrating the increase in taxa seen by metagenomics versus culturing is not exactly news.

On 2015 Oct 08, David A Coil commented:

This comment is cross-posted from the original article.

This is the first time I’ve commented on an article using this system, but this paper was so riddled with problems I felt that I had to start. “Respiratory” is mis-spelled in the title and the rest of the paper is in a similar vein. I understand that it is difficult to write in a foreign language, and that seeing “have your paper read by a native English speaker” is annoying. However, in this case the writing is so confusing as to be nonsensical in places. For example, I’ve read this sentence a dozen times and I still don’t know what it means “This reminder the potential network monitor of this method due to the lower detection limit of which VS culture based technology and the easy handling of the system.”

But what I really can’t understand how the spelling mistakes made it through editorial and peer review (starting with the title). Just a few examples easily found by any spell checker include “postion”, “microorgnisms”, “maliganant”, “leathal”, and “noncosomicol”. Not to mention random capitalization such as “Petri dish” and “petridish” in the same paragraph.

I won’t get into the lack of stats, the total lack of references to much of the related work in the field, and the fact that demonstrating the increase in taxa seen by metagenomics versus culturing is not exactly news.