Manuscript ID number:

406038

Title of paper:
Medical Reform in Ukraine: Development of Management of Healthcare Institutions at the present stage

Reviewer 1
Title & Abstract
1. Do the title and abstract cover the main aspect of the work?
NO. I'm not even sure why 'present Ukraine' is mentioned in the title - when there is notghing about present situation of
Ukraine's healthhcare in the text.

2. Does the introduction provide background and information relevant to the study?
NO.

Material and Methods

3. Are the methods clear and replicable? Do all the results presented match the methods described?
NO. The authors do not provide any relevant information on the Material and Methods.

Results
4. If relevant are the results novel? Does the study provide an advance in the field? Is the data plausible?
NO. The whole article lacks proper 'research article structure'. It is rather a chaotic connection of sometimes loosely related
fragments.

Discussion
5. Do the findings described by the author correlate with the results? Are the findings relevant?
NO.

Conclusion
6. Do the conclusions correlate to the results found?
NO.

Figures & Tables

7. If the author has provided figures and tables are the figures and tables clear and legible? Are the figures free from
unnecessary modification?
NO.

8. Does the paper raise any concerns?

It is not proper research paper.

Competing interest
9. Do any of the authors' competing interests raise concerns about the validity of the study i.e. have the authors'
competing interests created a bias in the reporting of the results and conclusions?
none
Recommendations to the Editor
Additional comments
No additional comments
Reviewer 2
Title & Abstract
1. Do the title and abstract cover the main aspect of the work?
The title does not fit the entire discourse of the work. I suggest "Reflection on the Management of Medical Institutions in
Ukraine": Current Realities and Challenges.

2. Does the introduction provide background and information relevant to the study?
The introduction and background is poorly written. The paper begins with a Foreword. There is no clear introduction for this
work.

Material and Methods

3. Are the methods clear and replicable? Do all the results presented match the methods described?
No there is no material and methods section in this work. The authors have not stated if this is a review paper or an empirical
paper. The authors have just put together some information.

Results
4. If relevant are the results novel? Does the study provide an advance in the field? Is the data plausible?
This worl does not advance the discourse as expected.

Discussion
5. Do the findings described by the author correlate with the results? Are the findings relevant?
No the discussion section is not sufficient.

Conclusion
6. Do the conclusions correlate to the results found?
The conclusion should be written as a prose. The conclusion is not sufficient.

Figures & Tables

7. If the author has provided figures and tables are the figures and tables clear and legible? Are the figures free from
unnecessary modification?
The table is legible.

8. Does the paper raise any concerns?

The paper does not raise core ethical concerns.
Statistical analysis not required.
References are stated.
No clear cut similarity to other studies.

Competing interest
9. Do any of the authors' competing interests raise concerns about the validity of the study i.e. have the authors'
competing interests created a bias in the reporting of the results and conclusions?
NIL

Recommendations to the Editor

Additional comments
The authors write a sub-section as "Analysis of literature data and problem statement". What problem statement I ask. The
authors have raised several issues and not presented them in an organized manner.
There are to many ideas been haphazardly addressed in the work.
The entire paper should be re-written in prose form.
There are tooo many short paragraphs in the work.
This is a poorly written manuscript. The subsections and paragraphs of thoughts are not properly stated.
It is difficult to read and understand as the work lacks coherence.
 Reviewer 3
Title & Abstract
1. Do the title and abstract cover the main aspect of the work?
The abstract is not structured, and it is difficult to understand what authors did in this manuscript from abstract.

2. Does the introduction provide background and information relevant to the study?
Authors could not explain background and information relevant to the study in introduction section.

Material and Methods

3. Are the methods clear and replicable? Do all the results presented match the methods described?
Methods are not clear.

Results
4. If relevant are the results novel? Does the study provide an advance in the field? Is the data plausible?
It is difficult to understand what authors want to say as result. No data or references provided as results.

Discussion
5. Do the findings described by the author correlate with the results? Are the findings relevant?
Because it is difficult to understand what authors want to say as result, it is difficult to evaluate them.

Conclusion
6. Do the conclusions correlate to the results found?
Because it is difficult to understand what authors want to say as result, it is difficult to evaluate them.

Figures & Tables

7. If the author has provided figures and tables are the figures and tables clear and legible? Are the figures free from
unnecessary modification?
They are not clear.

8. Does the paper raise any concerns?

This manuscript is not logical, and no data or references provided for results. It is difficult to conclude that this manuscript
reaches the level of publication as a scientific article.

Competing interest
9. Do any of the authors' competing interests raise concerns about the validity of the study i.e. have the authors'
competing interests created a bias in the reporting of the results and conclusions?
None

Recommendations to the Editor

Additional comments
No additional comments

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)