Title: The prognostic significance of desmoplastic reaction, tumor budding, and tumor-
infiltrating lymphocytes in esophageal squamous cell carcinomas
Version: 1 Date: 05 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. The quality and labelling of the histopathology photos are not great.
2. It is highly unusal that the 3rd author is the corresponding.
3. The manuscript does not contain an abstract.
4. The objectives do not contain any references.
5. Please list the examined parameters (TB, TME, TIL, DR) in the same order as in title and
then later on consequentially.
6. The punctuation of the text has many mistakes.
7. These features are made by the pathologist according to the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM)
classification staging included in the pathology report . - TNM does not include all factors you
mentioned in the previous sentence.
8. In this a consecutive study? Were patients excluded?
9. What was histologically identified as mature DR?
10. The results section is highly unprofessional. Does not include anything about the cohort.
How many males/females? Age? Histotype? TNM? Grade? etc.
11. It is not stated who examined these factors in the study? Was it a pathologist? Was he/she
an expert?
12. The list of abbreviations is not in aphabetical order.
13. Figure legends are highly unprofessional.
Title: The prognostic significance of desmoplastic reaction, tumor budding, and tumor-
infiltrating lymphocytes in esophageal squamous cell carcinomas
Version: 1 Date: 05 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. The quality and labelling of the histopathology photos are not great.
2. It is highly unusal that the 3rd author is the corresponding.
3. The manuscript does not contain an abstract.
4. The objectives do not contain any references.
5. Please list the examined parameters (TB, TME, TIL, DR) in the same order as in title and
then later on consequentially.
6. The punctuation of the text has many mistakes.
7. These features are made by the pathologist according to the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM)
classification staging included in the pathology report . - TNM does not include all factors you
mentioned in the previous sentence.
8. In this a consecutive study? Were patients excluded?
9. What was histologically identified as mature DR?
10. The results section is highly unprofessional. Does not include anything about the cohort.
How many males/females? Age? Histotype? TNM? Grade? etc.
11. It is not stated who examined these factors in the study? Was it a pathologist? Was he/she
an expert?
12. The list of abbreviations is not in aphabetical order.
13. Figure legends are highly unprofessional.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The prognostic significance of desmoplastic reaction, tumor budding, and tumor-
infiltrating lymphocytes in esophageal squamous cell carcinomas
Version: 1 Date: 05 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
1. The quality and labelling of the histopathology photos are not great.
2. It is highly unusal that the 3rd author is the corresponding.
3. The manuscript does not contain an abstract.
4. The objectives do not contain any references.
5. Please list the examined parameters (TB, TME, TIL, DR) in the same order as in title and
then later on consequentially.
6. The punctuation of the text has many mistakes.
7. These features are made by the pathologist according to the tumor-node-metastasis (TNM)
classification staging included in the pathology report . - TNM does not include all factors you
mentioned in the previous sentence.
8. In this a consecutive study? Were patients excluded?
9. What was histologically identified as mature DR?
10. The results section is highly unprofessional. Does not include anything about the cohort.
How many males/females? Age? Histotype? TNM? Grade? etc.
11. It is not stated who examined these factors in the study? Was it a pathologist? Was he/she
an expert?
12. The list of abbreviations is not in aphabetical order.
13. Figure legends are highly unprofessional.
assistant