Your English writing platform
Free sign upSuggestions(5)
Exact(8)
This Pfam (not the misleading DUF71) name and Pfam number should be indicated with just a statement in the introduction that it was formerly DUF71.
Authors' response: The concerned sentences have been reformulated The statement in the introduction that "the core of Darwin's theory was never really questioned".
Broad, sweeping statements are made, which by their nature are inaccurate, such as the statement in the introduction that Ebola "came and disappeared".
Thus, while the statement in the introduction goes in the right direction, it would be better to soften it a bit.
We have added the following statement in the Introduction section: "These results suggest that R397A is suitable to capture the apo and ions-only bound outward-facing states for their structural characterization.
For example, the statement (in the Introduction) "A recent systematic review of guidelines for limiting bias in preclinical research design was unable to identify any guidelines in oncology (Han et al., 2013)" is not supported by Han et al., 2013.
Similar(52)
It seems to contradict the statements in the introduction and discussion that mention direct track students do better than national track.
My only minor objections concern several statements in the Introduction that are incorrect or misleading: 1) 'but a direct demonstration of amyloid resolubilization in vivo has yet to be reported in any system'.
In the meantime, we continue our endorsement of the Medical Council's statement (appearing in the Introduction to their current 2009 guidelines) that comprehensive guidelines must be developed to address the issues highlighted here.
Finally, in February 2009, Pope Benedict XVI made the euphoric "Darwin-birthday-statements" quoted in the introduction of this Essay, claiming that Darwin's system of theories is compatible with Christian faith.
The main argument of the essay has been summarised, the conclusion links back to the thesis statement that is in the introduction, and there is a final statement about implications for future practice.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.
Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com