Title: The characteristics and clinical relevance of tumor fusion burden in non-EBV (+) gastric
cancer with MSS
Version: 1 Date: 15 Jan 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 major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major 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 major 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?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors performed meta-analysis of publicly available NGS
data top assess relation of tumor fusion burden to tumor immunogenicity and molecular
characteristics of gastric cancer. The manuscript still needs extensive modifications before
further consideration. The structure of the paper is confusing and should be better structured,
in particular Materials and Methods section. It is also not clear what specific outcome and
significance in the field this report brings. As this is a purely computational analysis, some kind
of experimental validation of in silico results should be implemented. Further, the text is difficult
to read and should be improved by English editing service.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The structure of the paper is confusing and should be better structured, in particular Materials
and Methods section. It is also not clear what specific outcome and significance in the field this
report brings. As this is a purely computational analysis, some kind of experimental validation
of in silico results should be implemented. Further, the text is difficult to read and should be
improved by English editing service.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The Materials and Methods section needs to be revised and it is not clear what specific outcome
and significance in the field this report brings. "
Title: The characteristics and clinical relevance of tumor fusion burden in non-EBV (+) gastric
cancer with MSS
Version: 1 Date: 15 Jan 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 major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major 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 major 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?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors performed meta-analysis of publicly available NGS
data top assess relation of tumor fusion burden to tumor immunogenicity and molecular
characteristics of gastric cancer. The manuscript still needs extensive modifications before
further consideration. The structure of the paper is confusing and should be better structured,
in particular Materials and Methods section. It is also not clear what specific outcome and
significance in the field this report brings. As this is a purely computational analysis, some kind
of experimental validation of in silico results should be implemented. Further, the text is difficult
to read and should be improved by English editing service.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The structure of the paper is confusing and should be better structured, in particular Materials
and Methods section. It is also not clear what specific outcome and significance in the field this
report brings. As this is a purely computational analysis, some kind of experimental validation
of in silico results should be implemented. Further, the text is difficult to read and should be
improved by English editing service.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The Materials and Methods section needs to be revised and it is not clear what specific outcome
and significance in the field this report brings. "
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The characteristics and clinical relevance of tumor fusion burden in non-EBV (+) gastric
cancer with MSS
Version: 1 Date: 15 Jan 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 major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols) appropriate for
the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient technical rigor to
allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major 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 major 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?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS:
GENERAL COMMENTS: The authors performed meta-analysis of publicly available NGS
data top assess relation of tumor fusion burden to tumor immunogenicity and molecular
characteristics of gastric cancer. The manuscript still needs extensive modifications before
further consideration. The structure of the paper is confusing and should be better structured,
in particular Materials and Methods section. It is also not clear what specific outcome and
significance in the field this report brings. As this is a purely computational analysis, some kind
of experimental validation of in silico results should be implemented. Further, the text is difficult
to read and should be improved by English editing service.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
The structure of the paper is confusing and should be better structured, in particular Materials
and Methods section. It is also not clear what specific outcome and significance in the field this
report brings. As this is a purely computational analysis, some kind of experimental validation
of in silico results should be implemented. Further, the text is difficult to read and should be
improved by English editing service.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The Materials and Methods section needs to be revised and it is not clear what specific outcome
and significance in the field this report brings. "
assistant