Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Serious postoperative complications induced by medical glue: three case reports  
   
Version: 2 Date: 02 May 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
REVISION ASSESSMENT FROM THE ACADEMIC PEER REVIEWER:  
 
Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently for you to now recommend the work as a 
technically sound contribution? No  
 
Reviewer comments: Have the authors answered all your queries?  
Yes but several times not appropriately.  
 
Have the authors added c hanges in the text to address the queries?  
Yes but the paper needs extensive editing by a surgeon or an editing service that is a scientific 
one that knows medical and surgical terms.  
 
What is your overall opinion?  
This paper has a definite message but it is very poorly written and the editing service they used 
did a VERY LOUSY JOB.  This "editing service" does not have editors who are scientists or 
clinicians and it is obvious. I would suggest that the authors send my review back to them and 
ask for their money back. I would suggest that the editor of the respective journal uses his/her 
editors to make this more acceptable. I GAVE MANY SUGGESTIONS BUT THERE ARE 
MANY OTHER POORLY WORDED PLACES AS WELL.  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
Are there other changes that need to be made?  
1. Page 2 line 4 Add the phrase "of intestinal anastomoses or sites of potential leakage of fluid" 
after the word "reinforcement". Also  I have no idea how fibrin glue has been used for "wound 
protection"!  Del ete this and replace the term "adhesion" with  "adhesion of two structures 
together"  
 
2. Line 9 Don't you mean "intestinal obstruction"? It would make more sense  
 
3. Line 14 Replace the phrase after the word  "and" with "an internal hernia related to use o f 
fibrin glue"  
 
4. Line 16 Replace "duodenal suturing" with "operative closure of the site of duodenal erosion"  
 
5. From now on I will not correct every inappropriate use of words or phrases of which there are 
many -this is for the journal editors to do, bu t I will address places that are unclear or meaningless  
 
6. Page 4 line 7 Delete the word "patch", no idea what you mean by this term  
 
7. Page 4 line 3 Better not specify just FG and use the term "tissue glues" instead of FG because 
your references are not  all on FG, same on line 12.  Then start a new paragraph on line 17 to 
from now on limit the paper to FG - remember your paper is on FG not all tissue glues.  
 
8. Line 8 What is tissue "shielding"? I have absolutely no idea and I am a surgeon! This needs to 
be reworded  
 
9. Page 5 line 3 Delete the word "radical"  
 
10. Page 5 line 4 Change "gastroscope" to "upper endoscopy"  
 
Then the phrase "foreign bodies covering the anterior aspect of the duodenum"...how can 
endoscopy show this? - delete it or if you mean the se foreign bodies were seen on CT then add it 
to the next sentence.  
 
11. Line 10 Delete "turbid surroundings fatty spaces", this terminology is meaningless ( your 
editing service did not give you good advice !) change to loss of the fat plane between the s erosa 
of the duodenum and the surrounding inflamed retroperitoneal tissue. This entire sentence needs 
to be reworded "rough edge of local intestinal wall" is sloppy and not appropriate.  
 
12. Line 12 What does "colloidal" mean? Again the editing service did  a lousy  job!  
 
13. Line 14 What do you mean passed through the mesentery?  
 
14. Line 15 "intermittent" should be changed to "interrupted", again lousy job by editing service 
I would ask for your money back and show them this review!!!!!!  
 
15. In case 1 did you do any pathological evaluation of the foreign  bodies? Did the previous 
operative note describe the use of FG during the case? How do you know they used FG instead 
of other tissue glue?  You need to define this exactly and not make an y assumptions. See line 2 
page 5  
 
16. Page 5 line 2 What type of an ovarian "tumor"? This may be very important!  
 
17. Page 5 line 4 Change to "mass protruding into the lumen surrounded by a hard, dark brown 
substance at 50cm from the anus"  
 
18. Line 5 "non -uniform" what do you mean ? Heterogeneous? Localized? Non -uniform is 
meaningless  
 
19. Line 7 "rough" is meaningless  
 
20. Line 7 "unclear surroundings fatty gap" is meaningless, your editing service did a lousy 
job!!!!!! This is not scientific or clinical terminology, ask for your money back!  
 
21. Line 11 "entero -anastomosis" is not appropriate, why not just say "with a primary colo -
colostomy" which is the appropriate word  
 
22. Page 6 line 20 "effusion" again is not appropriate, say "revealed dilation and fluid distension" 
Line 21 I really doubt that the diagnosis preoperatively was "internal hernia", it would have been 
"adhesive obstruction" preop diagnosis of an internal hernia is quite unusual!  
 
23. Page 7 lines 4 and 5 Where are the foreign bodies locat ed? Did they form the "hernia ring?  If 
not, then how can you say the intestinal obstruction was related to the use of FG? If not you had 
better delete this case.  
 
24. Page 7 line 16 This needs to be added to line 4 page 4 and what do you mean by "massive 
volume" ? Better be exact!  Do you have the amount of FG they used?  if not then you cannot say 
"massive volumes"  
 
25. Page 7 line 20 how can you say that it was an "overdose"? How much did they use? Do you 
know? If not then do not make claims that you can not prove  
 
26. Page 7 line 22 Why not just say "these foreign bodies from the nondegraded FG then eroded 
the colon causing an intestinal obstruction" because that is what you found!  
 
 
 
27. Page 8 line 4 Again you claim "overuse of FG", reword and just say "u se of FG appears to 
have caused" and delete the phrase "excessive adhesions" Line 7 you claim that the "spraying 
thickness" is important -how do you know that? Lines 8 and 9 do you have any evidence of this? 
You are making too many statements that you cann ot prove. Line 11 change to "Excessive 
application of FG appears to be able to lead to the". Then later on delete the term dosage and 
spraying thickness" and just say "amount" here as well as on line 19  
 
28. Page 13 Delete frames c, g, j, and l, they add little to your paper  
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well des cribed?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions draw n adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript : 
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
  
 
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding , or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the  publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, writ e 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are no t utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe . Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as  confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Serious postoperative complications induced by medical glue: three case reports  
   
Version: 2 Date: 02 May 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
REVISION ASSESSMENT FROM THE ACADEMIC PEER REVIEWER:  
 
Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently for you to now recommend the work as a 
technically sound contribution? No  
 
Reviewer comments: Have the authors answered all your queries?  
Yes but several times not appropriately.  
 
Have the authors added c hanges in the text to address the queries?  
Yes but the paper needs extensive editing by a surgeon or an editing service that is a scientific 
one that knows medical and surgical terms.  
 
What is your overall opinion?  
This paper has a definite message but it is very poorly written and the editing service they used 
did a VERY LOUSY JOB.  This "editing service" does not have editors who are scientists or 
clinicians and it is obvious. I would suggest that the authors send my review back to them and 
ask for their money back. I would suggest that the editor of the respective journal uses his/her 
editors to make this more acceptable. I GAVE MANY SUGGESTIONS BUT THERE ARE 
MANY OTHER POORLY WORDED PLACES AS WELL.  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
Are there other changes that need to be made?  
1. Page 2 line 4 Add the phrase "of intestinal anastomoses or sites of potential leakage of fluid" 
after the word "reinforcement". Also  I have no idea how fibrin glue has been used for "wound 
protection"!  Del ete this and replace the term "adhesion" with  "adhesion of two structures 
together"  
 
2. Line 9 Don't you mean "intestinal obstruction"? It would make more sense  
 
3. Line 14 Replace the phrase after the word  "and" with "an internal hernia related to use o f 
fibrin glue"  
 
4. Line 16 Replace "duodenal suturing" with "operative closure of the site of duodenal erosion"  
 
5. From now on I will not correct every inappropriate use of words or phrases of which there are 
many -this is for the journal editors to do, bu t I will address places that are unclear or meaningless  
 
6. Page 4 line 7 Delete the word "patch", no idea what you mean by this term  
 
7. Page 4 line 3 Better not specify just FG and use the term "tissue glues" instead of FG because 
your references are not  all on FG, same on line 12.  Then start a new paragraph on line 17 to 
from now on limit the paper to FG - remember your paper is on FG not all tissue glues.  
 
8. Line 8 What is tissue "shielding"? I have absolutely no idea and I am a surgeon! This needs to 
be reworded  
 
9. Page 5 line 3 Delete the word "radical"  
 
10. Page 5 line 4 Change "gastroscope" to "upper endoscopy"  
 
Then the phrase "foreign bodies covering the anterior aspect of the duodenum"...how can 
endoscopy show this? - delete it or if you mean the se foreign bodies were seen on CT then add it 
to the next sentence.  
 
11. Line 10 Delete "turbid surroundings fatty spaces", this terminology is meaningless ( your 
editing service did not give you good advice !) change to loss of the fat plane between the s erosa 
of the duodenum and the surrounding inflamed retroperitoneal tissue. This entire sentence needs 
to be reworded "rough edge of local intestinal wall" is sloppy and not appropriate.  
 
12. Line 12 What does "colloidal" mean? Again the editing service did  a lousy  job!  
 
13. Line 14 What do you mean passed through the mesentery?  
 
14. Line 15 "intermittent" should be changed to "interrupted", again lousy job by editing service 
I would ask for your money back and show them this review!!!!!!  
 
15. In case 1 did you do any pathological evaluation of the foreign  bodies? Did the previous 
operative note describe the use of FG during the case? How do you know they used FG instead 
of other tissue glue?  You need to define this exactly and not make an y assumptions. See line 2 
page 5  
 
16. Page 5 line 2 What type of an ovarian "tumor"? This may be very important!  
 
17. Page 5 line 4 Change to "mass protruding into the lumen surrounded by a hard, dark brown 
substance at 50cm from the anus"  
 
18. Line 5 "non -uniform" what do you mean ? Heterogeneous? Localized? Non -uniform is 
meaningless  
 
19. Line 7 "rough" is meaningless  
 
20. Line 7 "unclear surroundings fatty gap" is meaningless, your editing service did a lousy 
job!!!!!! This is not scientific or clinical terminology, ask for your money back!  
 
21. Line 11 "entero -anastomosis" is not appropriate, why not just say "with a primary colo -
colostomy" which is the appropriate word  
 
22. Page 6 line 20 "effusion" again is not appropriate, say "revealed dilation and fluid distension" 
Line 21 I really doubt that the diagnosis preoperatively was "internal hernia", it would have been 
"adhesive obstruction" preop diagnosis of an internal hernia is quite unusual!  
 
23. Page 7 lines 4 and 5 Where are the foreign bodies locat ed? Did they form the "hernia ring?  If 
not, then how can you say the intestinal obstruction was related to the use of FG? If not you had 
better delete this case.  
 
24. Page 7 line 16 This needs to be added to line 4 page 4 and what do you mean by "massive 
volume" ? Better be exact!  Do you have the amount of FG they used?  if not then you cannot say 
"massive volumes"  
 
25. Page 7 line 20 how can you say that it was an "overdose"? How much did they use? Do you 
know? If not then do not make claims that you can not prove  
 
26. Page 7 line 22 Why not just say "these foreign bodies from the nondegraded FG then eroded 
the colon causing an intestinal obstruction" because that is what you found!  
 
 
 
27. Page 8 line 4 Again you claim "overuse of FG", reword and just say "u se of FG appears to 
have caused" and delete the phrase "excessive adhesions" Line 7 you claim that the "spraying 
thickness" is important -how do you know that? Lines 8 and 9 do you have any evidence of this? 
You are making too many statements that you cann ot prove. Line 11 change to "Excessive 
application of FG appears to be able to lead to the". Then later on delete the term dosage and 
spraying thickness" and just say "amount" here as well as on line 19  
 
28. Page 13 Delete frames c, g, j, and l, they add little to your paper  
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well des cribed?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions draw n adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript : 
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
  
 
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding , or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the  publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, writ e 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are no t utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe . Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as  confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Serious postoperative complications induced by medical glue: three case reports  
   
Version: 2 Date: 02 May 2019  
 
Reviewer: Reviewer 2  
 
Reviewer's report:  
REVISION ASSESSMENT FROM THE ACADEMIC PEER REVIEWER:  
 
Has the author addressed your concerns sufficiently for you to now recommend the work as a 
technically sound contribution? No  
 
Reviewer comments: Have the authors answered all your queries?  
Yes but several times not appropriately.  
 
Have the authors added c hanges in the text to address the queries?  
Yes but the paper needs extensive editing by a surgeon or an editing service that is a scientific 
one that knows medical and surgical terms.  
 
What is your overall opinion?  
This paper has a definite message but it is very poorly written and the editing service they used 
did a VERY LOUSY JOB.  This "editing service" does not have editors who are scientists or 
clinicians and it is obvious. I would suggest that the authors send my review back to them and 
ask for their money back. I would suggest that the editor of the respective journal uses his/her 
editors to make this more acceptable. I GAVE MANY SUGGESTIONS BUT THERE ARE 
MANY OTHER POORLY WORDED PLACES AS WELL.  
 
ADDITIONAL REQUESTS/SUGGESTIONS:  
Are there other changes that need to be made?  
1. Page 2 line 4 Add the phrase "of intestinal anastomoses or sites of potential leakage of fluid" 
after the word "reinforcement". Also  I have no idea how fibrin glue has been used for "wound 
protection"!  Del ete this and replace the term "adhesion" with  "adhesion of two structures 
together"  
 
2. Line 9 Don't you mean "intestinal obstruction"? It would make more sense  
 
3. Line 14 Replace the phrase after the word  "and" with "an internal hernia related to use o f 
fibrin glue"  
 
4. Line 16 Replace "duodenal suturing" with "operative closure of the site of duodenal erosion"  
 
5. From now on I will not correct every inappropriate use of words or phrases of which there are 
many -this is for the journal editors to do, bu t I will address places that are unclear or meaningless  
 
6. Page 4 line 7 Delete the word "patch", no idea what you mean by this term  
 
7. Page 4 line 3 Better not specify just FG and use the term "tissue glues" instead of FG because 
your references are not  all on FG, same on line 12.  Then start a new paragraph on line 17 to 
from now on limit the paper to FG - remember your paper is on FG not all tissue glues.  
 
8. Line 8 What is tissue "shielding"? I have absolutely no idea and I am a surgeon! This needs to 
be reworded  
 
9. Page 5 line 3 Delete the word "radical"  
 
10. Page 5 line 4 Change "gastroscope" to "upper endoscopy"  
 
Then the phrase "foreign bodies covering the anterior aspect of the duodenum"...how can 
endoscopy show this? - delete it or if you mean the se foreign bodies were seen on CT then add it 
to the next sentence.  
 
11. Line 10 Delete "turbid surroundings fatty spaces", this terminology is meaningless ( your 
editing service did not give you good advice !) change to loss of the fat plane between the s erosa 
of the duodenum and the surrounding inflamed retroperitoneal tissue. This entire sentence needs 
to be reworded "rough edge of local intestinal wall" is sloppy and not appropriate.  
 
12. Line 12 What does "colloidal" mean? Again the editing service did  a lousy  job!  
 
13. Line 14 What do you mean passed through the mesentery?  
 
14. Line 15 "intermittent" should be changed to "interrupted", again lousy job by editing service 
I would ask for your money back and show them this review!!!!!!  
 
15. In case 1 did you do any pathological evaluation of the foreign  bodies? Did the previous 
operative note describe the use of FG during the case? How do you know they used FG instead 
of other tissue glue?  You need to define this exactly and not make an y assumptions. See line 2 
page 5  
 
16. Page 5 line 2 What type of an ovarian "tumor"? This may be very important!  
 
17. Page 5 line 4 Change to "mass protruding into the lumen surrounded by a hard, dark brown 
substance at 50cm from the anus"  
 
18. Line 5 "non -uniform" what do you mean ? Heterogeneous? Localized? Non -uniform is 
meaningless  
 
19. Line 7 "rough" is meaningless  
 
20. Line 7 "unclear surroundings fatty gap" is meaningless, your editing service did a lousy 
job!!!!!! This is not scientific or clinical terminology, ask for your money back!  
 
21. Line 11 "entero -anastomosis" is not appropriate, why not just say "with a primary colo -
colostomy" which is the appropriate word  
 
22. Page 6 line 20 "effusion" again is not appropriate, say "revealed dilation and fluid distension" 
Line 21 I really doubt that the diagnosis preoperatively was "internal hernia", it would have been 
"adhesive obstruction" preop diagnosis of an internal hernia is quite unusual!  
 
23. Page 7 lines 4 and 5 Where are the foreign bodies locat ed? Did they form the "hernia ring?  If 
not, then how can you say the intestinal obstruction was related to the use of FG? If not you had 
better delete this case.  
 
24. Page 7 line 16 This needs to be added to line 4 page 4 and what do you mean by "massive 
volume" ? Better be exact!  Do you have the amount of FG they used?  if not then you cannot say 
"massive volumes"  
 
25. Page 7 line 20 how can you say that it was an "overdose"? How much did they use? Do you 
know? If not then do not make claims that you can not prove  
 
26. Page 7 line 22 Why not just say "these foreign bodies from the nondegraded FG then eroded 
the colon causing an intestinal obstruction" because that is what you found!  
 
 
 
27. Page 8 line 4 Again you claim "overuse of FG", reword and just say "u se of FG appears to 
have caused" and delete the phrase "excessive adhesions" Line 7 you claim that the "spraying 
thickness" is important -how do you know that? Lines 8 and 9 do you have any evidence of this? 
You are making too many statements that you cann ot prove. Line 11 change to "Excessive 
application of FG appears to be able to lead to the". Then later on delete the term dosage and 
spraying thickness" and just say "amount" here as well as on line 19  
 
28. Page 13 Delete frames c, g, j, and l, they add little to your paper  
 
 
 
Are the methods appropriate and well des cribed?  
If not, please specify what is required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Does the work include the necessary controls?  
If not, please specify which controls are required in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are the conclusions draw n adequately supported by the data shown?  
If not, please explain in your comments to the authors.  
 
Yes 
 
Are you able to assess any statistics in the manus cript or would you recommend an 
additional statistical review?  
If an additional statistical review is recommended, please speci fy what aspects require further 
assessment in your comments to the editors.  
 
Not relevant to this manuscript  
 
Quality of written English  
Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript : 
 
Needs some language corrections before being published  
  
 
 
 
 
 
Declaration of competing interests  
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:  
 
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding , or salary from an 
organisation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the publication of this 
manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in any way gain or lose 
financially from the  publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents  relating to the content of the 
manuscript?  
 
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that 
holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?  
 
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?  
 
6. Do you have any non -financial competing interests in relation to this paper?  
 
If you can answer no to all of the above, writ e 'I declare that I have  no competing interests' 
below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.  
 
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square. Reviewers with 
declared or apparent competing interests are no t utilized for t hese reviews. This reviewer has 
agreed to publication of their comments online under a Creat ive Commons Attribution License 
attributed to Research Square and was paid a small honorarium for  completing the review within 
a specified timeframe . Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer 
recommendation.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understan d that my name will be included 
on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted f or publication, my named report 
including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' 
responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons  
CC-BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). I understand that any comments 
which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as  confidential comments 
to the editors, which will not be published.  
 
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal  
assistant