All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Dr. Li and colleagues:
Thanks for revising your manuscript based on the concerns raised by the reviewers. I now believe that your manuscript is suitable for publication. Congratulations! I look forward to seeing this work in print, and I anticipate it being an important resource for groups studying mechanisms and detection of alternative splicing events in circular RNAs. Thanks again for choosing PeerJ to publish such important work.
Best,
-joe
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors have adequately answered all the queries proposed in the previous review. I believe that figures, with the modifications that they made and the greater explanation of them in the figure caption, are much better understood. Congratulations for your job.
Dear Dr. Li and colleagues:
Thanks for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ. I have now received three independent reviews of your work, and as you will see, the reviewers raised some minor concerns about the manuscript. Despite this, these reviewers are optimistic about your work and the potential impact it will have on research studying mechanisms and detection of alternative splicing events in circular RNAs. Thus, I encourage you to revise your manuscript, accordingly, taking into account all of the concerns raised by both reviewers.
There are not too many suggestions; thus, it should not take much effort to address these concerns to greatly improve your manuscript.
Please have an English-speaking expert help revise your manuscript.
Please note that reviewers 2 and 3 have included marked-up versions of your manuscript.
I look forward to seeing your revision, and thanks again for submitting your work to PeerJ.
Good luck with your revision,
-joe
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at editorial.support@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The review is well structured, however I recommend that a native English speaker is consulted as there are several occasions where a wrong word is used. The review shows a comprehensive and adequate literature review. The review might be interesting for scientists studying alternative splicing within circRNAs however there has been a recent review paper in Briefings in Bioinformatics (Chen et al. Feb. 2020: The bioinformatics toolbox for circRNA discovery and analysis) summarizing even more tools and resources for circRNAs. Li at al has a slightly stronger focus on alternative splicing and mentions only two programs Chen et al. do not mention.
The review mentions many programs for alternative splicing in circRNAs, however it would be good if they had also compared advantages and disadvantages of the programs or tried to run selected programs to give the reader advice on which tool to use for which type of data.
Li et al. nicely highlights the drawbacks of short read sequencing when trying to reconstruct full length circRNAs.
The review nicely summarizes the current field and might be a good starting point for further reading.
The authors have compiled an informative and insightful review of the mechanism and detection of alternative splicing events in circular RNAs. This reviewer found the topic timely and of great interest, and the article informative. Overall, I recommend this manuscript for publication pending minor edits.
'no comment'
'no comment'
A few suggestions would help to provide a bit more in-depth detail and answer questions that naturally arise from the article's discussion. Also, moderate English editing would be helpful to clarify the point of several sentences.
The present manuscript submitted by the authors on circRNA is considered suitable for publication pending major edits. Despite presenting a fairly complete content regarding the topic it develops, it is recommended to detail a little more information, as well as a review of the English language. However, I consider it is important to emphasize that they bring very interesting information to the field, giving enough literature references and an adequate article structure.
The article presented complies with PeerJ's aim & scopus and the information they provide is considered sufficient and appropriate. However, some claims are requested to be discussed and more detailed.
Despite not being a research article, they review interesting information for the circRNA field, providing concise information on the subject.
The present manuscript submitted by the authors on circRNA is considered suitable for publication pending major edits. Despite presenting a fairly complete content regarding the topic it develops, it is recommended to detail a little more information listed below, as well as a review of the English language. However, I consider it is important to emphasize that they bring very interesting information to the field.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.