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.
Your manuscript is now suitable for publication. Thanks for the nice work
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Although three reviewers found your study interesting and analysis thorough, reviewer 2 raised significant concerns about your work. Please revise according to reviewer 2's comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial 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. #]
Long sentences in the discussion part. Spelling mistakes of ORF8 in the discussion.
Authors should provide detail about identification of T-ORF8 and matlab programs.
Discussion needs to be modified with more clarity.
No comment
No comments
No comments
The hypothesis and conclusions were clearly identified and the importance of the study was stated making it easier to follow the authors' experimental design. Well laid out schematics and tables were also appreciated.
The manuscript writing and data organization is poorly organized. The concept of unique T-ORF8s has to be better explained.
The analysis of variants within USA is not relevant, and other factors may be analyses together with geography. Manuscript organization is confusing with unnecessary tables and figures that distract the reading.
The work requires a deep phylogenetic analysis to support major claims, which is lacking.
The paper reports the role of mutation in ORF8 of SARS CoV2 leads to second wave in several countries. the authors have done significant in silico analysis of orf8 from different regions.
experimental designing is very well planned. but there is a small suggestion if anything related to structure can be included it will be good and further enrich the manuscript.
the findings requires a experimental validation. but the in silico analysis has significant impact.
no comments
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.