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.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on September 13th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on November 17th, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 29th, 2022 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on December 1st, 2022.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Dec 1, 2022 · Academic Editor


Dear authors

Thank you for your replies!

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Celine Gallagher, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Nov 17, 2022 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Dear authors,

Please reply point by point to the reviewers' comments.


Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Dear authors,
The article is well-written and rich in interesting content. English is clear and technical language is used.
The introduction is synthetic and smooth to read. I very much appreciated it. However, in my opinion, you could add some basic clinical information about hypertension in this section. Appropriate references have been reported.
All the figures are relevant to the content of the article, and their descriptions are clear. No further correction is needed.

Experimental design

The text is linear and the whole content clearly defines the research question. The study adds much information to the literature to fill that gap. Rigorous investigations have been performed and conformed to an ethical standard. Methods are described with sufficient information. I just suggest you insert a reference to whether the cut-off points used to diagnose hypertension were by any previous study (lines 90-92).

Validity of the findings

In my opinion, the results are well stated and exposed. Although the statistical methods are used correctly and several pieces of information were provided, it is not clear whether the Cox proportional-hazards regression model assumptions were met.
Discussion and conclusions are linked to the original research question and hypothesis.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The author’s study tries to investigate the effect of coexisting existence of hypertension on the prognosis of Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) by comparing two groups of HCM.
The manuscript is generally well-written and easy to read; a slight spell-check is required.


keywords usually should be different from that used in the main title.


The literature on the subject could be improved, perhaps indicating the incidence of this condition and the anatomopathological features of the heart.

Experimental design


The methods section is sufficiently well described.

Validity of the findings

The results and discussion section are quite clear and organised.
The parameters considered are well presented.

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.