Review History


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).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on July 13th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 19th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 13th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on November 3rd, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 6th, 2015.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

The revised manuscript addresses the concerns from the reviewers and editor. Please ensure the electronic figures are of production quality.

Version 0.2

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The revised manuscript address most of the concerns from the reviewers. I have a general concern: Supposing the majority of patients are from Japan, is there any necessary to discuss about the similar cohort from different ethnic group or genetic group. Additonally, the results section is a little short. I would recommend to combine the results and discussion together if possible. The conclusion is neat. It will be better to highlight the main discovery from your study.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

You will see that, while they find your work of interest, they have raised several serious points that need to be addressed by a major revision.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Experimental design

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Validity of the findings

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Comments for the author

Please see the attachment. Thanks!

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript by Makoto et al. proposed to use pH analysis to predict the therapy response in pulmonary tuberculosis. The general ideas are promising.

Experimental design

The experimental design is accurate for the research.

Validity of the findings

No Comments.

Comments for the author

I have a few concerns as below:
1) It will be better to specify the exact clinical application in conclusion section, not just mention the pH analysis is useful. For example, For a specific age group or gender, this method is useful.
2) Please specify why use MedCalc for the statistical analysis. What is the advantage of this tool comparing to other open source software.
3) Because the individual difference of samples is too big, it is not appropriate to use one-way ANOVA.
4) Because the sample size is small, the conclusion may be not sure.

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.