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.
Based on reviewers assessment I am happy to consider paper for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jun Chen, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Everything good
Arranged as per reviewer's comments. It's good.
Results reported were meeting the objective. No comments in this regard.
No comments
Two reviewers have given their comments and please be advised the paper requires major revisions. Please incorporate the revisions and resubmit at the earliest.
[# 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. #]
Computational investigations supporting with experimental validation are profoundly important. In the present article with title “Utilizing network pharmacology and experimental validation to investigate the underlying mechanism of phellodendrine on inflammation” authors attempted finding mechanism of phellodendrine in the inflammation.
The positive strengths of the present manuscript are good concept, elaborative results, graphical and tabular analysis.
However, the study needs extensive revision before acceptance;
1. Manuscript need to rewrite proper English and without any grammatical and typographical mistakes.
2. Line 51 -Write biological name as per the nomenclature-
3. Rewrite the rational of drug selection for proposed study with relevant references.
4. Whether the Cortex phellodendri is the only source of phellodendrine? Clarify..
5. Rewrite the Introduction with reference to the objective of the study
6. Flow in discussion section found missing.
1. Kindly provide references for the experimental section2.5.2 to 2.5.5.
2. Please mention how network was analyzed meaning how it was treated and which variable was considered for the constructed network analysis.
3. Authors need to rewrite experimental part 2.2 for better understanding.
No Comment
No Comments
Professional English is been used. In supplementary files the data set names were given in Chinese which is unclear.
Literature part is good.
Raw data shared is informative.
Results were good.
No comments
Usage of SPSS software for statistical analysis should be justified. Why not Graph pad prism is used?
Justify why SPSS software is been used.
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.