Title: Comprehensive analysis of candidate signatures of long non-coding RNA LINC01116
and related protein-coding genes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 5 Date: 26 Apr 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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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: There continues to be some confusion with respect to the concerns
raised in the review of this manuscript. In the original review, there were five points requiring
revision, as well as requests to provide a biological rationale for studying LINC01116 within
the context of HCC in the Introduction and a concluding paragraph in the Discussion that
summarizes the main findings, places them in a general context, and proposes areas for future
studies. The authors have still not addressed points 4 and 5 in their response or in the revisions,
nor have the requested changes been made to the Introduction and Discussion.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see the commentary above.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors should also more explicitly address the concerns raised by the Reviewer 1."
Title: Comprehensive analysis of candidate signatures of long non-coding RNA LINC01116
and related protein-coding genes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Version: 5 Date: 26 Apr 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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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: There continues to be some confusion with respect to the concerns
raised in the review of this manuscript. In the original review, there were five points requiring
revision, as well as requests to provide a biological rationale for studying LINC01116 within
the context of HCC in the Introduction and a concluding paragraph in the Discussion that
summarizes the main findings, places them in a general context, and proposes areas for future
studies. The authors have still not addressed points 4 and 5 in their response or in the revisions,
nor have the requested changes been made to the Introduction and Discussion.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see the commentary above.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors should also more explicitly address the concerns raised by the Reviewer 1."
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: 5 Date: 26 Apr 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?
Yes - the author's interpretation is reasonable
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: There continues to be some confusion with respect to the concerns
raised in the review of this manuscript. In the original review, there were five points requiring
revision, as well as requests to provide a biological rationale for studying LINC01116 within
the context of HCC in the Introduction and a concluding paragraph in the Discussion that
summarizes the main findings, places them in a general context, and proposes areas for future
studies. The authors have still not addressed points 4 and 5 in their response or in the revisions,
nor have the requested changes been made to the Introduction and Discussion.
REQUESTED REVISIONS:
Please see the commentary above.
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:
The authors should also more explicitly address the concerns raised by the Reviewer 1."
assistant