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).
The manuscript has scientific merit and all the comments of the reviewers have been assessed correctly; therefore It is a distinct pleasure to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication in PeerJ.
I believe that the author has taken into consideration the suggestions made by both referees and has improved the overall quality of the article. I deem that the article should be accepted as is.
The author has properly addressed and revised the manuscript as advised in the previous review round. The manuscript has been significantly improved and therefore I believe it is now ready to be published.
Experimental design is OK
Validity of the findings is OK
Thank you for submitting your manuscript for review to PeerJ. After careful consideration, we feel that your manuscript will likely be suitable for publication if it is revised to address the points below. Therefore, my decision is "Minor Revision."
Overally, it is a well written and well-organized paper that should be taken into consideration for the scientists who conduct meta-analyses of independent studies. Therefore, I suggest to accept this paper after the author has taken into account the following minor comments indicated within the attached PDF file.
I would recommended that the author using passive instead of active voice. Given that it is a single-author paper, the author should better avoid using "we".
This is a comprehensive meta-analysis that combines many independent studies on the potential implication in the occurrence of coronary heart disease (CHD) of the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) at the -308 position of the tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) gene, using Bayesian statistics. Herein, it is clear that indeed CHD is not more likely to occur when the SNP is present, which suggests that the -308 TNF-alpha SNP is not implicated in the occurrence of CHD. I believe that this is a very sound scientifically piece of work that deserves to be published.
Experimental design is sound and well laid out. I would suggest that the author of this manuscript adds a flowchart that summarises the whole exp. design of this article.
Validity of the findings of this article is sound. Properly calculated and well presented.
Overall, I would suggest very minor revisions:
1) Figure 2, could go in the appendix
2) Tables iii and iv have been mis-positioned in the review-pdf. Please check
3) Maybe some "popular science" semi-conclusions could be added next to the math sections of the manuscript to aid the reader.
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.