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 May 3rd, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 28th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 14th, 2021 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on September 29th, 2021.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Sep 29, 2021 · Academic Editor

Accept

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 #]

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

No comment.

Experimental design

No comment.

Validity of the findings

No comment.

Additional comments

No comment.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jun 28, 2021 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

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/ #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Good

Experimental design

Author must include construction and analysis of target genes - TF regulatory network and target genes - miRNA regulatory network along with topology Tables

Validity of the findings

good

Additional comments

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

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

none

Experimental design

none

Validity of the findings

none

Additional comments

The presented work in this article is incomplete and not clear.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

- 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.

Experimental design

- 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.

Validity of the findings

- 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?

Additional comments

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.