Title: Expression of kinetochore component NDC80 promotes esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma cells proliferation and migration
Version: 3 Date: 27 Aug 2024
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?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I need to start with the disclaimer that I was not involved in the
original review of this manuscript, and was called to evaluate the revised submission.
I have carefully evaluated the concerns of reviewers from the earlier round of review, and
the responses of the authors. I have also evaluated the revised manuscript. It is clear from the
submitted manuscript that it has been extensively modified and proof-read to improve grammar
and readability. The responses to reviewers’ concerns are adequate. Looks like the references
of a single scientist were asked to be added by one of the reviewers and the authors refused.
In my judgment, the authors rebuttal regarding this particular concern is understandable and
acceptable. One reviewer apparently wanted authors to provide some flow data but the question
was not asked in a proper way.
As a bottom line, authors have responded well to reviewers’ concerns and the manuscript can
be accepted for publication."
Title: Expression of kinetochore component NDC80 promotes esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma cells proliferation and migration
Version: 3 Date: 27 Aug 2024
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?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I need to start with the disclaimer that I was not involved in the
original review of this manuscript, and was called to evaluate the revised submission.
I have carefully evaluated the concerns of reviewers from the earlier round of review, and
the responses of the authors. I have also evaluated the revised manuscript. It is clear from the
submitted manuscript that it has been extensively modified and proof-read to improve grammar
and readability. The responses to reviewers’ concerns are adequate. Looks like the references
of a single scientist were asked to be added by one of the reviewers and the authors refused.
In my judgment, the authors rebuttal regarding this particular concern is understandable and
acceptable. One reviewer apparently wanted authors to provide some flow data but the question
was not asked in a proper way.
As a bottom line, authors have responded well to reviewers’ concerns and the manuscript can
be accepted for publication."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Expression of kinetochore component NDC80 promotes esophageal squamous cell
carcinoma cells proliferation and migration
Version: 3 Date: 27 Aug 2024
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?)
Yes - there is a clear objective
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
Yes - the approach is appropriate
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Yes - experiments and analyses were performed appropriately
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Yes - appropriate statistical analyses have been used in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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?
Yes - current version is technically sound
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: I need to start with the disclaimer that I was not involved in the
original review of this manuscript, and was called to evaluate the revised submission.
I have carefully evaluated the concerns of reviewers from the earlier round of review, and
the responses of the authors. I have also evaluated the revised manuscript. It is clear from the
submitted manuscript that it has been extensively modified and proof-read to improve grammar
and readability. The responses to reviewers’ concerns are adequate. Looks like the references
of a single scientist were asked to be added by one of the reviewers and the authors refused.
In my judgment, the authors rebuttal regarding this particular concern is understandable and
acceptable. One reviewer apparently wanted authors to provide some flow data but the question
was not asked in a proper way.
As a bottom line, authors have responded well to reviewers’ concerns and the manuscript can
be accepted for publication."
assistant