Title: A comprehensive computational analysis to explore the importance of SIGLECs in HCC
biology
Version: 7 Date: 05 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: In the files that I received, I did not have a copy of the authors
responses to the issues raised. However, in the marked manuscript they have introduced a
number of changes as recommended but seem not to have edited anything down. I still have
reservations about the emphasis of the manuscript.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I really don't think the point of the manuscript is to highlight the use of SIGLECs expression as
a biomarker for sorafenib response. Especially when that observation is based on n=22 patients,
from what I can see in the supplementary data.
For me a better title to use is ""A comprehensive computational analysis to explore the
importance of SIGLECs in HCC biology and prognosis"" this is a sentence of the authors from
the introduction.
Abbreviation use and definition is better but please be consistent, so check your manuscript
again, including your legends and how you label any figures.
Thank you for Figure 1, it was helpful.
Remember part of revision is editing things down too.
Title: A comprehensive computational analysis to explore the importance of SIGLECs in HCC
biology
Version: 7 Date: 05 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: In the files that I received, I did not have a copy of the authors
responses to the issues raised. However, in the marked manuscript they have introduced a
number of changes as recommended but seem not to have edited anything down. I still have
reservations about the emphasis of the manuscript.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I really don't think the point of the manuscript is to highlight the use of SIGLECs expression as
a biomarker for sorafenib response. Especially when that observation is based on n=22 patients,
from what I can see in the supplementary data.
For me a better title to use is ""A comprehensive computational analysis to explore the
importance of SIGLECs in HCC biology and prognosis"" this is a sentence of the authors from
the introduction.
Abbreviation use and definition is better but please be consistent, so check your manuscript
again, including your legends and how you label any figures.
Thank you for Figure 1, it was helpful.
Remember part of revision is editing things down too.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: A comprehensive computational analysis to explore the importance of SIGLECs in HCC
biology
Version: 7 Date: 05 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
"PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS:
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one or several
testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a clear objective?)
No - there are minor issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are minor issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently
for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound contribution? If not, can further
revisions be made to make the work technically sound?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: In the files that I received, I did not have a copy of the authors
responses to the issues raised. However, in the marked manuscript they have introduced a
number of changes as recommended but seem not to have edited anything down. I still have
reservations about the emphasis of the manuscript.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
I really don't think the point of the manuscript is to highlight the use of SIGLECs expression as
a biomarker for sorafenib response. Especially when that observation is based on n=22 patients,
from what I can see in the supplementary data.
For me a better title to use is ""A comprehensive computational analysis to explore the
importance of SIGLECs in HCC biology and prognosis"" this is a sentence of the authors from
the introduction.
Abbreviation use and definition is better but please be consistent, so check your manuscript
again, including your legends and how you label any figures.
Thank you for Figure 1, it was helpful.
Remember part of revision is editing things down too.
assistant