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.
Thanks for the revision of the manuscript, which can be now accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jun Chen, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
The manuscript you submitted to PeerJ, has been reviewed. The reviewers have recommended publication pending major revisions. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewers' comments at the bottom of this letter and revise your manuscript accordingly.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response 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 response 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 response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
Good
Author must include construction and analysis of target genes - TF regulatory network and target genes - miRNA regulatory network along with topology Tables
good
Author must provided Differential gene expression (DEGs) table with probe id, logFC, pValue, adj.P.Val, t value and Gene Name, which are more fundamental and basic in this work.
Author must include construction and analysis of target genes - TF regulatory network and target genes - miRNA regulatory network along with topology Tables
none
none
none
The presented work in this article is incomplete and not clear.
- English language should be improved significantly. There still have some unclear and ambiguous parts.
- This manuscript lacks a literature review on bioinformatics-based ovarian cancer studies.
- Quality of figures should be improved.
- A critical concern is the use of a very small sample size of data (only 25 patients). This number was not enough to convince a significant result/finding.
- There must have more description of the methodology to support replicating the methods. Currently, it lacks detailed information.
- The authors did not have any validation data.
- What are the cut-off threshold and p-values of GO enrichment analysis?
- What are the limitations of the study and how to address them in future works?
No comment.
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.