BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Articles Published Processes Featured Articles Journals Submit a Manuscript
Article Quality Tracking
Ponte RV, Faria AA, Guedes LR, Yamashiro IS, Macedo ML, Lima MC, Souza PF, Vidigal PV, Penna FG, Sancio JB. Acute liver failure temporally associated with intensive consumption of Plantago major tea: A case report. World J Clin Cases 2026; 14(26): 126744 [DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.126744]
(18) (15) (0) (0) (12) (1) (230)
Reviewer's ID:
06219052
Submitted on:
September 22, 2026, 05:16
Peer-Review:
Anonymous
Reviewer's Country:
United Arab Emirates
Conflicts-of-interest statement

Reviewers should recognize, acknowledge and disclose any potential conflict of interest that may include (but not be limited) to the following, and inform the editorial office immediately upon discovery of any conflict of interest, stopping if the article review process is underway.

Close personal and/or professional relationship with the author(s); submitted similar or competing manuscripts to BPG or other journals; studied together with the author(s) and/or has former student, resident, fellow, mentor or family relative relationship; and have had in last 5 years collaboration or common grants and/or publications or financial interest with the authors?
Criteria for Article Quality Tracking-Peer-Review

The mission of BPG is to comply with publishing ethics/standards established by the industry and to publish high quality articles. In addition, we strive to make a strict peer-review of each article submitted, and tracking the scientific quality of each is the mission of the editorial board members and/or peer-reviewers.

The following evaluation points are for editorial board members and/or peer-reviewers’ reference only in evaluating an article:

1 Ethics: Does the ethical approval form provided by the author meet the requirements?

2 Methods: Is the experimental method effective? Can it be repeated by fellow researchers (according to adequate textual/citation content presented)?

3 Results: Are the results true and authentic? Is the theory or hypothesis of universal significance validated or partially validated?

4 Figures and tables: Does the author provide perfect tables, line charts and/or graphs? Or, does the author provide figures and tables that are confusing, poorly constructed and/or not well-annotated?

5 Biostatistics: Does the author provide perfect biostatistics data? Or, does the author provide tables and line charts that have mistakes in the data?

6 References: Does the author scientifically and reasonably cite the latest references which are important in this field and related to the scientific problems and research hypotheses addressed in the study? Or, does the author self-cite, omit, mis-cite and/or over-cite references?

7 Language: Does the language in article correctly, clearly and concisely express the information? Or, does the article have multiple grammatical and spelling mistakes?

8 Caveats or drawbacks: What are the caveats or drawbacks for the results?

Comments to Authors
Please make a specific and meaningful evaluation on the objectivity, credibility and scientific quality of the article according to above listed criteria. Please identify which issues have been resolved by the author and which not, what problems still exist, and which method the author intends to adopt to solve the problem in the next step, etc. Your high quality conclusion will also be advantageous for the author’s efforts in conducting future research, will contribute to raising the reader’s interest, and will promote discipline development. Please fill in your detailed comments to authors at below:
Publication is defensible only as a hypothesis generating pharmacovigilance signal, not as evidence that Plantago major caused liver failure. The authors generally acknowledge this distinction, which is the paper's main strength. 1. Temporality is not securely established Abdominal pain began approximately two months before hospitalization and before the tea was consumed. The tea was started because symptoms persisted. Without liver tests before tea exposure, the initial abdominal pain could have been a manifestation of an already developing hepatic illness. Exact calendar dates for tea initiation, discontinuation, jaundice onset, first abdominal liver tests, and encephalopathy are needed. 2. The implicated substance was never established The plant was not botanically authenticated, the amount of plant material and infusion concentration were unknown, and no sample was tested for contaminants, pesticides, heavy metals, adulterants, or another plant species. Therefore, the case cannot specifically implicated P. major. AASLD guidance emphasizes that herbal product composition and contamination are major obstacles to causality assessment. 3. Alternative causes were incompletely documented. 4. The F factor may not represent the initial injury 5. No structured causality result. The authors appropriately state that RUCAM could not be calculated reliably. However, this leaves the association at a very low evidentiary level. An expert adjudicated qualitative assessment with explicit ratings for the herb, omeprazole, and indeterminate ALF would improve the report.
Author Awards
1 Award aims: To praise the authors who have made outstanding contributions by publishing original and innovative Basic study, Clinical study, Case report and/or Review in any of the 43 open-access publications of BPG. Their publications represent meaningful contributions towards promoting the ability of readers to get the latest research results and towards the development of medical science. To thank such authors for their contributions, we have set up the ‘Baishideng Distinguished Award’ to track the quality of articles and award the corresponding authors.

2 Selection methods: Editorial board members will track the quality of the published articles in each issue, so that they can recognize excellent articles and categorize them for recommendation. Then, the annual Baishideng Distinguished Award winners will be selected according to the recommendation categories and the academic influence of the articles. The indexes for academic influence of the articles involves the number of citations, clicks and downloads the paper received.

3 Number of awards: Among articles published in the 43 journals of BPG, 12 total articles (3 Reviews, 3 Basic studies, 3 Clinical studies and 3 Case reports) will be recognized and their authors awarded.

4 Award amounts: The first prize will be 5000 USD. The second prize will be 3000 USD. The third prize will be 2000 USD. In addition, each winner will be presented an official certificate for their Baishideng Distinguished Award.

5 List of winners: The list of Baishideng Distinguished Award winners will be announced on the official BPG website.
Editorial board members and/or peer-reviewers should categorize articles according to the following recommendation categories, with consideration to results of the Track Article Quality assessment to identify excellent articles:
Copyright © 1993-2026 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA. All rights reserved, including rights relating to text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For open-access content, the applicable copyright and licensing terms govern.