Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on February 3rd, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on March 4th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on May 17th, 2021 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on May 24th, 2021.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· May 24, 2021 · Academic Editor

Accept

Thank you for addressing all questions. I am glad to accept your paper!

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

I have no further comment on the revised manuscript.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Mar 4, 2021 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Our reviewers are very positive about your study and have some suggestions for the improvement of your manuscript. Please address them thoroughly.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

I feel as though the authors mention health problems and inflammation, but don't draw a strong and explicit enough link between increased inflammation and health problems. The reader might find a few citations linking prolonged inflammation to health.

Experimental design

While I do understand and appreciate your use of female mice, it could use a little more explanation, perhaps with some citations. There is some evidence of variation of the inflammatory response across the estrous cycle in mice. Since your mice were P21, were they not yet sexually mature? Do you not expect this to be an issue for your study? Please elaborate.

Validity of the findings

I suggest removing all mention of trending results from the results section to make the text more clear. Statistical purists will always say that your finding is either significant or not with nothing in between.

Additional comments

A well written and interesting study. I have very little to add.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

The present study determined the inflammatory response to acute and chronic sleep fragmentation and assessed the modulating effects of α- and β- adrenergic receptors antagonists on these responses. Findings of this study added meaningful data about the sympathetic nervous system mechanism of the stress responses resulted from sleep disorders. Advice for the author:
A.Give evidences or reasons for the choice of sampling sites in the central parts and peripheral organs/tissues in the introduction or discussion section.
B. What suggestions for clinical practices could be drawn from this study findings?

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.