Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on May 12th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 22nd, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on July 1st, 2015 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on July 11th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

We agree that the revised version is acceptable for publication in its current form. Congratulations on the work.

·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

Comments regarding the possibility of smoking interfering with sleep cycles have been addressed by the author in the discussion.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Overall, reviewers have favorable comments on the study, and authors are advised to revise to meet their minor concerns. Please do check your abstract on the number of participants recruited and analyzed.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Good.

Experimental design

No Comments.

Validity of the findings

No Comments.

Comments for the author

Interesting findings of an inflammatory model affecting sleep.

·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

The relevance of the statement " Since post-operative sleep............surgical patients " in lines 61- 63 is not understandable after stating the hypothesis.Moreover, what the superscripts used in these lines indicate is not clear. Is it references? The relevance of this statement here needs explanation.

The statement in lines 149 and 150 " TST values were significantly reduced..........increased" is not clearly understandable. The statement here should be clearly expressed as per data stated in the table.

Similarly the statement in lines 156, 157, 158 and 159 " IL-6 levels..........significance" is not clearly understandable. The statement here should be clearly expressed as per data stated in the figure.

In table1 , (line 361) the total number of male and female, analgesic intake are stated under the column of median. The table needs to be revised.

·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

1. Were any of the subjects active smokers or on smoking-cessation therapy (e.g. nicotine patches)? As the act of smoking may be stimulatory in nature and affect your results (or alternatively sudden cessation of smoking may affect the patient's sleep cycle).
2. Line 60/61: "complications that complicate..." suggest slightly change sentence to make it sound better.

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.