Reviewer's report 
 Fibrinogen Storage Disease Without Hypofibrinogenemia Associated With Estrogen Therapy Title: 
 2  10 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 A S. Knisely Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Assessment, reworked version, Simsek Z et al., “Fibrinogen storage disease…” 
Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate a rewritten draft of the present manuscript. As I stated 
before, the observation that it records is intriguing and novel. I hope that the MS, which has been 
improved, will find its way to publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Although the MS is better than it was (I think that the inclusion of ultrastructural findings is to be 
commended), it is not, in my opinion, yet suitable for publication. The authors, to be frank, have 
sabotaged themselves by slovenry in writing and editing. 
I find fault with the MS principally in that a native speaker of English, one possessing scientific or 
medical proficiency, has not been allowed to evaluate the present draft. My previous comments 
included this statement: “This MS must be submitted to the care of a native speaker of English with 
expertise in scientific or medical language. So many errors are present…that to list them, and to 
request individual corrections, would be tedious.” The authors claim that “utmost care” has been employed in addressing the errors in language. I doubt this. Exempli gratia: 
“Forty years-old female referred to our department for evaluation of elevated liver enzymes on May 
2004.” 
A native speaker would perhaps write “A forty-year-old female was referred to our department for 
evaluation of elevated liver enzymes in May, 2004.” The authors’ use of language is not idiomatic. 
“A year ago, she had had a total abdominal histerectomy and bilateral salphingo-oopherectomy.” 
Again: “A year before, she had had a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral 
salpingo-oophorectomy.” 
The authors’ use of language again is not idiomatic. The spell-check / grammar programme 
incorporated into Microsoft Word 2000 – the software I am using at this moment – recognises 
“histerectomy” as misspelt and questions the non-recognised term “salphingo-oopherectomy”. Not to 
put a MS draft through a spell-check function is lazy. 
A few lines below: “Screening for viral markers, including HCV-RNA PCR, resulted without evidence 
of infection.” 
Again: “Screening for viral antigens and for antibodies against them, as well as screening for viral 
nucleotide-acid sequences (including HCV-RNA / -cDNA PCR), found no evidence of infection.” The 
sentence as written is a nonsense. 
Several more lines below: “No reactivity with antibodies against hepatitis antigens, 
alpha-1-antitrypsin, and complement 3 were observed.” 
Again: “No reactivity with antibodies against hepatitis [B virus?] antigens, alpha-1-antitrypsin, and 
complement 3 was observed.” Singular subject, singular verb. 
Other deficiencies in usage are subtler; they could, I believe, be identified by a native speaker with 
competence in medical and scientific English. Exempli gratia: In the Abstract, the adjective 
“secretory” is used to describe the proteins that are abnormally accumulated within the endoplasmic 
reticulum of hepatocytes. This is an error. Proteins may be secretory (they participate actively in 
secretion). They may have been secreted, or be secreted (they participate passively in secretion) or 
may be destined for secretion (they bear tags directing them toward the secretory apparatus, but 
have not yet reached that apparatus). The authors have chosen the wrong term. If the proteins are retained within the endoplasmic reticulum, “destined for secretion” is appropriate. 
Any MS submitted for publication should, I believe, meet an adequate standard for literate use of the 
language in which it is couched. This MS sadly falls short of that standard. To be asked to assess a 
manuscript for which its own authors have so little regard that they can not be bothered to present its 
content properly is distressing. The authors have not respected the request presented them as a 
“major compulsory revision”. They have wrongly trusted their own abilities in English, which are 
deficient. They should again be asked to have the MS edited professionally by a medically and 
scientifically proficient native speaker of English, and any offer of publication should be withheld until
the authors demonstrably have complied with this request. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
A query of the authors: Is not fibrinogen Aguadilla (ref 7) characterised by the same ultrastructural 
appearance as fibrinogen Brescia? If that is the case, statements on MS p 6 are in error. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Reviewer's report 
 Fibrinogen Storage Disease Without Hypofibrinogenemia Associated With Estrogen Therapy Title: 
 2  10 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 A S. Knisely Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Assessment, reworked version, Simsek Z et al., “Fibrinogen storage disease…” 
Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate a rewritten draft of the present manuscript. As I stated 
before, the observation that it records is intriguing and novel. I hope that the MS, which has been 
improved, will find its way to publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Although the MS is better than it was (I think that the inclusion of ultrastructural findings is to be 
commended), it is not, in my opinion, yet suitable for publication. The authors, to be frank, have 
sabotaged themselves by slovenry in writing and editing. 
I find fault with the MS principally in that a native speaker of English, one possessing scientific or 
medical proficiency, has not been allowed to evaluate the present draft. My previous comments 
included this statement: “This MS must be submitted to the care of a native speaker of English with 
expertise in scientific or medical language. So many errors are present…that to list them, and to 
request individual corrections, would be tedious.” The authors claim that “utmost care” has been employed in addressing the errors in language. I doubt this. Exempli gratia: 
“Forty years-old female referred to our department for evaluation of elevated liver enzymes on May 
2004.” 
A native speaker would perhaps write “A forty-year-old female was referred to our department for 
evaluation of elevated liver enzymes in May, 2004.” The authors’ use of language is not idiomatic. 
“A year ago, she had had a total abdominal histerectomy and bilateral salphingo-oopherectomy.” 
Again: “A year before, she had had a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral 
salpingo-oophorectomy.” 
The authors’ use of language again is not idiomatic. The spell-check / grammar programme 
incorporated into Microsoft Word 2000 – the software I am using at this moment – recognises 
“histerectomy” as misspelt and questions the non-recognised term “salphingo-oopherectomy”. Not to 
put a MS draft through a spell-check function is lazy. 
A few lines below: “Screening for viral markers, including HCV-RNA PCR, resulted without evidence 
of infection.” 
Again: “Screening for viral antigens and for antibodies against them, as well as screening for viral 
nucleotide-acid sequences (including HCV-RNA / -cDNA PCR), found no evidence of infection.” The 
sentence as written is a nonsense. 
Several more lines below: “No reactivity with antibodies against hepatitis antigens, 
alpha-1-antitrypsin, and complement 3 were observed.” 
Again: “No reactivity with antibodies against hepatitis [B virus?] antigens, alpha-1-antitrypsin, and 
complement 3 was observed.” Singular subject, singular verb. 
Other deficiencies in usage are subtler; they could, I believe, be identified by a native speaker with 
competence in medical and scientific English. Exempli gratia: In the Abstract, the adjective 
“secretory” is used to describe the proteins that are abnormally accumulated within the endoplasmic 
reticulum of hepatocytes. This is an error. Proteins may be secretory (they participate actively in 
secretion). They may have been secreted, or be secreted (they participate passively in secretion) or 
may be destined for secretion (they bear tags directing them toward the secretory apparatus, but 
have not yet reached that apparatus). The authors have chosen the wrong term. If the proteins are retained within the endoplasmic reticulum, “destined for secretion” is appropriate. 
Any MS submitted for publication should, I believe, meet an adequate standard for literate use of the 
language in which it is couched. This MS sadly falls short of that standard. To be asked to assess a 
manuscript for which its own authors have so little regard that they can not be bothered to present its 
content properly is distressing. The authors have not respected the request presented them as a 
“major compulsory revision”. They have wrongly trusted their own abilities in English, which are 
deficient. They should again be asked to have the MS edited professionally by a medically and 
scientifically proficient native speaker of English, and any offer of publication should be withheld until
the authors demonstrably have complied with this request. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
A query of the authors: Is not fibrinogen Aguadilla (ref 7) characterised by the same ultrastructural 
appearance as fibrinogen Brescia? If that is the case, statements on MS p 6 are in error. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report 
 Fibrinogen Storage Disease Without Hypofibrinogenemia Associated With Estrogen Therapy Title: 
 2  10 August 2005 Version: Date: 
 A S. Knisely Reviewer: 
Reviewer's report: 
General 
Assessment, reworked version, Simsek Z et al., “Fibrinogen storage disease…” 
Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate a rewritten draft of the present manuscript. As I stated 
before, the observation that it records is intriguing and novel. I hope that the MS, which has been 
improved, will find its way to publication. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can 
be reached) 
Although the MS is better than it was (I think that the inclusion of ultrastructural findings is to be 
commended), it is not, in my opinion, yet suitable for publication. The authors, to be frank, have 
sabotaged themselves by slovenry in writing and editing. 
I find fault with the MS principally in that a native speaker of English, one possessing scientific or 
medical proficiency, has not been allowed to evaluate the present draft. My previous comments 
included this statement: “This MS must be submitted to the care of a native speaker of English with 
expertise in scientific or medical language. So many errors are present…that to list them, and to 
request individual corrections, would be tedious.” The authors claim that “utmost care” has been employed in addressing the errors in language. I doubt this. Exempli gratia: 
“Forty years-old female referred to our department for evaluation of elevated liver enzymes on May 
2004.” 
A native speaker would perhaps write “A forty-year-old female was referred to our department for 
evaluation of elevated liver enzymes in May, 2004.” The authors’ use of language is not idiomatic. 
“A year ago, she had had a total abdominal histerectomy and bilateral salphingo-oopherectomy.” 
Again: “A year before, she had had a total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral 
salpingo-oophorectomy.” 
The authors’ use of language again is not idiomatic. The spell-check / grammar programme 
incorporated into Microsoft Word 2000 – the software I am using at this moment – recognises 
“histerectomy” as misspelt and questions the non-recognised term “salphingo-oopherectomy”. Not to 
put a MS draft through a spell-check function is lazy. 
A few lines below: “Screening for viral markers, including HCV-RNA PCR, resulted without evidence 
of infection.” 
Again: “Screening for viral antigens and for antibodies against them, as well as screening for viral 
nucleotide-acid sequences (including HCV-RNA / -cDNA PCR), found no evidence of infection.” The 
sentence as written is a nonsense. 
Several more lines below: “No reactivity with antibodies against hepatitis antigens, 
alpha-1-antitrypsin, and complement 3 were observed.” 
Again: “No reactivity with antibodies against hepatitis [B virus?] antigens, alpha-1-antitrypsin, and 
complement 3 was observed.” Singular subject, singular verb. 
Other deficiencies in usage are subtler; they could, I believe, be identified by a native speaker with 
competence in medical and scientific English. Exempli gratia: In the Abstract, the adjective 
“secretory” is used to describe the proteins that are abnormally accumulated within the endoplasmic 
reticulum of hepatocytes. This is an error. Proteins may be secretory (they participate actively in 
secretion). They may have been secreted, or be secreted (they participate passively in secretion) or 
may be destined for secretion (they bear tags directing them toward the secretory apparatus, but 
have not yet reached that apparatus). The authors have chosen the wrong term. If the proteins are retained within the endoplasmic reticulum, “destined for secretion” is appropriate. 
Any MS submitted for publication should, I believe, meet an adequate standard for literate use of the 
language in which it is couched. This MS sadly falls short of that standard. To be asked to assess a 
manuscript for which its own authors have so little regard that they can not be bothered to present its 
content properly is distressing. The authors have not respected the request presented them as a 
“major compulsory revision”. They have wrongly trusted their own abilities in English, which are 
deficient. They should again be asked to have the MS edited professionally by a medically and 
scientifically proficient native speaker of English, and any offer of publication should be withheld until
the authors demonstrably have complied with this request. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the 
author can be trusted to correct) 
A query of the authors: Is not fibrinogen Aguadilla (ref 7) characterised by the same ultrastructural 
appearance as fibrinogen Brescia? If that is the case, statements on MS p 6 are in error. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) 
 Unable to decide on acceptance or rejection until the authors have responded to the What next?: 
major compulsory revisions 
 An article of limited interest Level of interest: 
 Not suitable for publication unless extensively edited Quality of written English: 
 No Statistical review: 
Declaration of competing interests: 
I declare that I have no competing interests. 
assistant