Title: Downregulation of SMOC1 is associated with progression of colorectal traditional
serrated adenomas
Version: 2 Date: 29 Jan 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: The revised manuscript is improved and the responses to prior
comments are somehow atisfactory. The issue of the originality from their previous 2018
Oncotarget  remains not fully addressed. The combination of all samples in one cohort made
the reading and presentation simpler.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The expression abundantly expressed should be avoided and replaced by high expression/highly
expressed. Conclusion statements in abstract and discussion can be further improved.
Title: Downregulation of SMOC1 is associated with progression of colorectal traditional
serrated adenomas
Version: 2 Date: 29 Jan 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: The revised manuscript is improved and the responses to prior
comments are somehow atisfactory. The issue of the originality from their previous 2018
Oncotarget  remains not fully addressed. The combination of all samples in one cohort made
the reading and presentation simpler.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The expression abundantly expressed should be avoided and replaced by high expression/highly
expressed. Conclusion statements in abstract and discussion can be further improved.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Downregulation of SMOC1 is associated with progression of colorectal traditional
serrated adenomas
Version: 2 Date: 29 Jan 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: The revised manuscript is improved and the responses to prior
comments are somehow atisfactory. The issue of the originality from their previous 2018
Oncotarget  remains not fully addressed. The combination of all samples in one cohort made
the reading and presentation simpler.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The expression abundantly expressed should be avoided and replaced by high expression/highly
expressed. Conclusion statements in abstract and discussion can be further improved.
assistant