Expert Opinion should be between 200 and 500 words.
This section should compare and contrast the patented approaches/drugs reviewed in the article with the range of alternative patented approaches/drugs. To conclude, give your opinion on the likelihood of the compounds described to become lead candidates for development, or if any of the techniques disclosed will be of potential therapeutic use. If not, indicate why you think the patent is nevertheless of interest. Comparative assessment is encouraged. When evaluating the patent, the author should place emphasis on the therapeutic significance of the novel invention.
The evaluation should place the invention into the context of the ‘state-of-the-art’ in the relevant field, by comparing and contrasting the invention with those of other companies working in the same field, or with earlier inventions from the same company. The chemistry and biology covered in the patent should be examined. evaluations must, above all, contain critical analyses of the invention, i.e., they should not just summarise the patent text. Comparative evaluations should highlight similarities and differences and identify the most interesting patents in the group.
This section affords authors the opportunity to go beyond the conclusion and provide their interpretation of the data presented in the article. In addition, there is the opportunity to discuss the developments that are likely to be important in the future and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results.
Please note that ‘opinions’ are encouraged in the Expert Opinion section, and as such, referees are asked to keep this in mind when peer reviewing the manuscript.