Title: Comprehensive analysis of candidate signatures of long non-coding RNA LINC01116
and related protein-coding genes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 28 Mar 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?)
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are minor issues
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?
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have not adequately responded to the concerns raised
in my first evaluation of the manuscript. In fact, I could not find acknowledgement of all of
these concerns in the ""response to reviewers"" document. Is it possible that the authors did not
receive this information?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors still need to address the concerns raised in the original evaluation of the manuscript.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors should also more explicitly address the concerns raised by the other reviewer."
Title: Comprehensive analysis of candidate signatures of long non-coding RNA LINC01116
and related protein-coding genes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 28 Mar 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?)
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are minor issues
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?
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have not adequately responded to the concerns raised
in my first evaluation of the manuscript. In fact, I could not find acknowledgement of all of
these concerns in the ""response to reviewers"" document. Is it possible that the authors did not
receive this information?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors still need to address the concerns raised in the original evaluation of the manuscript.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors should also more explicitly address the concerns raised by the other reviewer."
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Comprehensive analysis of candidate signatures of long non-coding RNA LINC01116
and related protein-coding genes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 3 Date: 28 Mar 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?)
No - there are minor issues
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?
No - there are minor issues
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?
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?
Maybe - with major revisions
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors have not adequately responded to the concerns raised
in my first evaluation of the manuscript. In fact, I could not find acknowledgement of all of
these concerns in the ""response to reviewers"" document. Is it possible that the authors did not
receive this information?
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The authors still need to address the concerns raised in the original evaluation of the manuscript.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors should also more explicitly address the concerns raised by the other reviewer."
assistant