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 addressed all the reviewers' comments to satisfaction and both the reviewers have endorsed the article to be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear,
It is acceptable for publication,
Dear,
It is acceptable for publication,
Dear,
It is acceptable for publication,
Dear,
It is acceptable for publication,
No comment
No comment
No comment
After thoroughly going through the revised manuscript, I am satisfied with all the corrections the authors have made after incorporating the points raised by the reviewers
The current review article has gained a lot of interest in recent years and the submitted manuscript covers this extensively. However, there are some comments that need to be addressed and are provided by the reviewers. Please address the comments and make the necessary changes before resubmitting the manuscript. Additionally, from my review of the manuscript, I recommend that you recheck for grammatical and typographical errors.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Reviewer 3 felt the article is too close to "The Role of Epigenetic in Dental and Oral Regenerative Medicine by Different Types of Dental Stem Cells: A Comprehensive Overview". In addition, another reviewer felt that the article is very similar to the paper by Lin et al. "The Epigenetic Regulation in Tooth Development and Regeneration. Current Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 2018, 13, 4-15", though they also said that a closer read indicates that the authors have worked to obtain much more data from the field by referencing several studies not mentioned in the above-mentioned paper. Given these concerns from 2 independent reviewers, the authors should carefully explain (in the text) how their article differs from these prior articles. They should also cite both prior articles. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language should be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Dear,
This is an interesting article but you just repeat those data that have published in REVIEW articles, you did not collect the the newly original studies, I suggest you to make table and collect the new studies (2010-2022).
It would be better to remove the many repeated subtitles in published articles such as 4.1DNA methylation, 4.2 Histone modifications,......
Author should explained and discussed more about recent studies (2015-2022)
The paper is a good review of studies that focused on creating epigenetic modifications to dental-derived stem cells for application in pulp and periodontal regeneration.
The tables are very self-explanatory and give a broad overview of all the studies in the field.
No comment
In line 430, the authors mention a word called “apexoplasty” which is an undefined word. I would request the authors to look into it.
I checked the " Epigenetic regulation of dental-derived stem cells and their application in pulp and periodontal regeneration" file.
The article "The Role of Epigenetic in Dental and Oral Regenerative Medicine by Different Types of Dental Stem Cells: A Comprehensive Overview" thoroughly reviewed the different aspects of epigenetics in dental regenerative medicine and even analyzed the existing documents related to different types of dental stem cells. Also, this article's structure is almost identical to the mentioned reference.
The next point is that this article has multiple grammatical and typographical mistakes.
no comment
no comment
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.