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 11th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on July 3rd, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 3rd, 2022 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 14th, 2022.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Aug 14, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

Your revision and feedback have been accepted for publication, pending journal policies and guidelines. Congratulation.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

many thanks for revising the manuscript.

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jul 3, 2022 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Kindly go through and respond point to point highlighted by the reviewers to expedite the process.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Minor typos and grammatical errors are there.
Introduction is well written covering the background information

Experimental design

well designed study and structured abstract

Validity of the findings

results are well explained and discussed, limitations of the study should be added

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Overall this is a good study. However, the comments I attached in the PDF will further help the authors to improve the manuscript to keep the readers on track and focused.

Experimental design

as in PDF

Validity of the findings

as in PDF

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

It was my pleasure to review the manuscript you submitted to Peers J. The manuscript is well written and the analysis performed seems adequate to its aim. Reference list encompasses relevant manuscripts in the field.

Experimental design

This is a nested quasi-randomized study. Methods used for investigation are sound and depicts a rigorous methodological standard. Limitations were presented by the authors.

Validity of the findings

The null hypothesis was partially accepted and the results show that ultraconservative treatment of proximal dental caries do not impact negatively the space for successor teeth, neither do defective restorations in proximal tooth surfaces. Limitations were pointed out by the authors and mostly are related to the secondary nature of the study.

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.