Title: Analysis of factors related to recanalization of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis:
a retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
**** Report no longer needed ****
I had very explicitly and detailed explained why I recommend rejection of this manuscript.
Now the authors provide a revision which does not even include a point by point answer to the
issues that I had raised. In the scientific community it  is common to provide a point-by-point
answer explanation to the reviewers comments. Additionally, the authors do not even provide
a file which helps to track the changes that they have made to the manuscript. This lack of
transparency and unwillingness to communicate is unacceptable. I do not see any reason to revise
my recommendation to reject this manuscript with the documents provided.
Title: Analysis of factors related to recanalization of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis:
a retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
**** Report no longer needed ****
I had very explicitly and detailed explained why I recommend rejection of this manuscript.
Now the authors provide a revision which does not even include a point by point answer to the
issues that I had raised. In the scientific community it  is common to provide a point-by-point
answer explanation to the reviewers comments. Additionally, the authors do not even provide
a file which helps to track the changes that they have made to the manuscript. This lack of
transparency and unwillingness to communicate is unacceptable. I do not see any reason to revise
my recommendation to reject this manuscript with the documents provided.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Analysis of factors related to recanalization of portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis:
a retrospective cohort study
Version: 1 Date: 04 Mar 2024
Reviewer's report:
**** Report no longer needed ****
I had very explicitly and detailed explained why I recommend rejection of this manuscript.
Now the authors provide a revision which does not even include a point by point answer to the
issues that I had raised. In the scientific community it  is common to provide a point-by-point
answer explanation to the reviewers comments. Additionally, the authors do not even provide
a file which helps to track the changes that they have made to the manuscript. This lack of
transparency and unwillingness to communicate is unacceptable. I do not see any reason to revise
my recommendation to reject this manuscript with the documents provided.
assistant