Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/35214
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

In biomedical science, you have the opportunity to discuss the human health impacts (and bring in broader societal ramifications) of the medical issues you're covering. My _guess_ is that you reviewed the state of the science without grounding sufficiently in human health cost.

I'm not certain which sub discipline you are reviewing, but for example if it were medical devices you could briefly elaborate in each (or some) sections of the manuscript how the device saved lives, or any new health risks the devices introduced. If the paper is on molecular tests, or data mining, or whatever - same idea.

Ex: I wrote a paper years ago identifying the gene responsible for a neonatal lethal condition. Two paragraphs in the introduction of the paper were very abbreviated case studies of infants with the condition. These paragraphs _were not necessary for the scientific advance_ that the research provided, but they help the reader understand the motivations for finding disease genes.

**Answer:** See if you can mention the health cost (number of lives saved or lost) by each advance or 'section' you cover in your review. If it makes sense to do so, which may not be the case, you can mention a high profile case that people will recognize, that was impacted by some aspect of research in your review.

Original score: 2