Reviewer's report
Title:Studies on best positive predictors for sustained virologic response to
interferon alpha plus ribavirin therapy in Naive Chronic Hepatitis C Patients
Version: 3Date:10 December 2008
Reviewer: Giuliano Ramadori
Reviewer's report:
Upon your request to comment on (i) whether the reviewer's concerns are
justified and thus whether they should preclude the publication of the paper and
(ii) the suitability of the paper for publication:
To my view, the comments of the reviewers are fully justified. However, both
minor and major issues were not seriously enough addressed by the authors.
For instance, there are still many spelling and grammar mistakes within the text.
The text might have been edited twice by a native speaker as stated by the
authors in their reply, but probably not by somebody with a sufficient scientific
background. Regarding that point, the authors should have made demand on a
more professional help.
Another point is the multitude of minor mistakes and inconsistencies which are
still not completely corrected. For instance, a mistake in Table 1 although stated
by the authors to be corrected (‘the percentage of genotype 3 females is not
18.78’) is still present.
Regarding major concerns, i.e. largely confirmatory results and the suggestion to
focus on the ethnic differences in responsiveness, have not been adequately
addressed.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Reviewer's report
Title:Studies on best positive predictors for sustained virologic response to
interferon alpha plus ribavirin therapy in Naive Chronic Hepatitis C Patients
Version: 3Date:10 December 2008
Reviewer: Giuliano Ramadori
Reviewer's report:
Upon your request to comment on (i) whether the reviewer's concerns are
justified and thus whether they should preclude the publication of the paper and
(ii) the suitability of the paper for publication:
To my view, the comments of the reviewers are fully justified. However, both
minor and major issues were not seriously enough addressed by the authors.
For instance, there are still many spelling and grammar mistakes within the text.
The text might have been edited twice by a native speaker as stated by the
authors in their reply, but probably not by somebody with a sufficient scientific
background. Regarding that point, the authors should have made demand on a
more professional help.
Another point is the multitude of minor mistakes and inconsistencies which are
still not completely corrected. For instance, a mistake in Table 1 although stated
by the authors to be corrected (‘the percentage of genotype 3 females is not
18.78’) is still present.
Regarding major concerns, i.e. largely confirmatory results and the suggestion to
focus on the ethnic differences in responsiveness, have not been adequately
addressed.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:Studies on best positive predictors for sustained virologic response to
interferon alpha plus ribavirin therapy in Naive Chronic Hepatitis C Patients
Version: 3Date:10 December 2008
Reviewer: Giuliano Ramadori
Reviewer's report:
Upon your request to comment on (i) whether the reviewer's concerns are
justified and thus whether they should preclude the publication of the paper and
(ii) the suitability of the paper for publication:
To my view, the comments of the reviewers are fully justified. However, both
minor and major issues were not seriously enough addressed by the authors.
For instance, there are still many spelling and grammar mistakes within the text.
The text might have been edited twice by a native speaker as stated by the
authors in their reply, but probably not by somebody with a sufficient scientific
background. Regarding that point, the authors should have made demand on a
more professional help.
Another point is the multitude of minor mistakes and inconsistencies which are
still not completely corrected. For instance, a mistake in Table 1 although stated
by the authors to be corrected (‘the percentage of genotype 3 females is not
18.78’) is still present.
Regarding major concerns, i.e. largely confirmatory results and the suggestion to
focus on the ethnic differences in responsiveness, have not been adequately
addressed.
Level of interest: An article whose findings are important to those with closely
related research interests
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
assistant