Title: Identification of a vascular invasion-related signature based on lncRNA pairs for
predicting prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 5 Date: 09 Nov 2023
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The current revision is labeled as R1, but it’s actually an R0
manuscript. Both previous revisors were unable to properly revise the manuscript since figures
were not uploaded. Thus, in synthesis, this is the first revision of the proposed study.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The study proposed by Zhao and co-authors sounds interesting and particular relevant. However,
The English language requires a critical and massive revision (starting from a sentence like
“According to the progress in transcriptome sequencing during the past ten years#we can
know that more than 70% of the genome is transcribed and the vast majority of them encodes
lncRNAs” and followings). The correct evaluation and understanding of the scientific approach
here described would be fully possible only after language polish and revision. Several parts of
the Results are quite confusing and misleading to the reader.
The authors keep referring to vasculature signature. However, such terminology is quite
aspecific and unclear in the context. Please revise and re-phrase sentences in the Introduction.
The approach summarized as “A 5 vascular invasion-related lncRNA pairs signature” is unclear
and misleading. Please revise it.
In the Introduction we can read: HCC “lacks appropriate treatment” as well as “progress has
been made in therapy”. The two statements are quite contradictory. Please re-phrase it.
The second paragraph on lncRNA would benefit from a small introduction, a bridge between the
HCC intro and lncRNA description. The third paragraph (Increasing evidence…) may actually
work if revised properly.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Patient and Public Involvement paragraph in the M&M section contains no information and
should be deleted
Human (patient’s) samples have been analyzed. How is possible that no ethical consent was
required or acquired?"
Title: Identification of a vascular invasion-related signature based on lncRNA pairs for
predicting prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 5 Date: 09 Nov 2023
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The current revision is labeled as R1, but it’s actually an R0
manuscript. Both previous revisors were unable to properly revise the manuscript since figures
were not uploaded. Thus, in synthesis, this is the first revision of the proposed study.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The study proposed by Zhao and co-authors sounds interesting and particular relevant. However,
The English language requires a critical and massive revision (starting from a sentence like
“According to the progress in transcriptome sequencing during the past ten years#we can
know that more than 70% of the genome is transcribed and the vast majority of them encodes
lncRNAs” and followings). The correct evaluation and understanding of the scientific approach
here described would be fully possible only after language polish and revision. Several parts of
the Results are quite confusing and misleading to the reader.
The authors keep referring to vasculature signature. However, such terminology is quite
aspecific and unclear in the context. Please revise and re-phrase sentences in the Introduction.
The approach summarized as “A 5 vascular invasion-related lncRNA pairs signature” is unclear
and misleading. Please revise it.
In the Introduction we can read: HCC “lacks appropriate treatment” as well as “progress has
been made in therapy”. The two statements are quite contradictory. Please re-phrase it.
The second paragraph on lncRNA would benefit from a small introduction, a bridge between the
HCC intro and lncRNA description. The third paragraph (Increasing evidence…) may actually
work if revised properly.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Patient and Public Involvement paragraph in the M&M section contains no information and
should be deleted
Human (patient’s) samples have been analyzed. How is possible that no ethical consent was
required or acquired?"
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Identification of a vascular invasion-related signature based on lncRNA pairs for
predicting prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 5 Date: 09 Nov 2023
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?
No - there are minor issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
Not sure - key details are missing from the manuscript
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
Not sure - I am not able to assess the statistics in this study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results reasonable and not
overstated?
No - there are minor 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?
Probably - with minor revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The current revision is labeled as R1, but it’s actually an R0
manuscript. Both previous revisors were unable to properly revise the manuscript since figures
were not uploaded. Thus, in synthesis, this is the first revision of the proposed study.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The study proposed by Zhao and co-authors sounds interesting and particular relevant. However,
The English language requires a critical and massive revision (starting from a sentence like
“According to the progress in transcriptome sequencing during the past ten years#we can
know that more than 70% of the genome is transcribed and the vast majority of them encodes
lncRNAs” and followings). The correct evaluation and understanding of the scientific approach
here described would be fully possible only after language polish and revision. Several parts of
the Results are quite confusing and misleading to the reader.
The authors keep referring to vasculature signature. However, such terminology is quite
aspecific and unclear in the context. Please revise and re-phrase sentences in the Introduction.
The approach summarized as “A 5 vascular invasion-related lncRNA pairs signature” is unclear
and misleading. Please revise it.
In the Introduction we can read: HCC “lacks appropriate treatment” as well as “progress has
been made in therapy”. The two statements are quite contradictory. Please re-phrase it.
The second paragraph on lncRNA would benefit from a small introduction, a bridge between the
HCC intro and lncRNA description. The third paragraph (Increasing evidence…) may actually
work if revised properly.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
Patient and Public Involvement paragraph in the M&M section contains no information and
should be deleted
Human (patient’s) samples have been analyzed. How is possible that no ethical consent was
required or acquired?"
assistant