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.
The authors have performed almost all required corrections so this manuscript is now acceptable.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors did all the corrections mentioned. They also corrected the English grammar throughout the entire manuscript.
The only mention i still have, is that the authors introduce the word "DOI" before each DOI link, like is stated in the Reference Format.
Like, "Wan QS, and Zhang KH. 2016. Noninvasive detection of gastric cancer. Tumour Biol 37:11633-11643. DOI: 10.1007/s13277-016-5129-4".
No comment
No comment
The manuscript is related to human serum amino acid and acyl-carnitine profiles for gastric cancer discrimination from atrophic gastritis and superficial gastritis patients.
Minor revisions should be made by reviewing the manuscript.
[# 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. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
1.There are small English grammar mistakes that need to be improved. Some prepositions are missing in the text. But overall, and for a better understanding, I do suggest you have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or contact a professional editing service for an overlook of the manuscript.
2. I recommend that the references in text to be put in the journal’s style, and to maintain the exact characteristic of the references in whole manuscript. There are some inconsistent references in the text, like lines 74, 75, 118, 127 and so on. Most references are superscript as style, but there are some that are normal.
3. Perhaps, for a better understanding of the audience, some more details should be explained in the Introduction section, regarding the results the authors present as comparison with their own results. See lines 118-127.
1. I would suggest the authors to make a table with all the abbreviations and explanations, at the end of the manuscript, for better comprehension.
2. Also, please verify each abbreviation to have an explanation, when first used in text.
3. Lines 312-317. I would be better for the manuscript and the future reader, if the authors of the manuscript would give some in-depth details about the results of the research articles, they compare to. Only mentioning lines like “Jing et al. observed GC patients have higher ornithine concentrations” is not enough.
No comment.
Please, revised your English.
no comment
Please rephrase the conclusions, as the form presented does not meet the requirements of PeerJ:
• Concisely restate the hypothesis and most important findings.
• Summarize the major findings, contributions to existing knowledge, and limitations.
• What are the future directions?
• Speculation is welcome but should be identified as such.
• Conclusions MUST be well stated, linked to the original research question & limited to supporting results.
Comments for the authors
I suggest writing in
Abstract
Line 24: space between ''May'' and ''2019'';
Lines 25-26: liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and as an abbreviation;
Line 32: for arginine the abbreviation ARG and use it in the whole manuscript;
Lines 38-39: use only the abbreviations for the diagnostic markers.
Introduction
Lines 53, 71-72, 114, and 123: references should be put to superscript;
Line 54: the incidence value is not written in a reader-friendly way;
Line 63: space before ‘’surgery’’; line 93: space between reference and ‘’and’’;
Lines 64, and 99: some spaces should be deleted;
In the sentence on lines 117-122, the values for the amino acids should be mentioned.
Materials & Methods
Lines 148, 152, 167, and 178: some spaces should be deleted;
Line 150: space between C and ‘’until’’.
Results
Lines: 198, 227-228, 237, 245, 250, 252: some spaces should be deleted;
Lines: 198, 199, 209, 226: insert some spaces.
Discussions
Lines: 291, 299, 306: references should be put to superscript.
Conclusions
Lines: 332-334, 507, 510-512 insert some spaces.
Figure legends
Lines: 515, 519: the abbreviations GC: gastric cancer; AG: atrophic gastritis; SG: superficial gastritis, have been mentioned above;
Line: 516: use only VIP.
Figures and figure legends in the manuscript should be in the same order as in the supplementary material.
Figure 1 (D and F) should have titles on axes?
Please, explain what is ‘’n’’ in Figure 3.
In the supplementary material please put the title and authors.
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.