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.
Dr Zhang and colleagues,
The original Academic Editor is unavailable so I am making the final decision in my capacity as Section Editor.
Thank you for addressing my recommended edits and comments in a very timely manner. I am pleased to recommend your amended manuscript to be published. Thank you for supporting PeerJ and we look forward to receiving furture manuscripts from you and your research team. A/Prof Mike Climstein
Please consider the suggestions performed in the attachment.
There is a good basis for starting the study in the literature, and the objectives are clearly defined in the manuscript.
There has been a significant improvement in the methodological issues that justified my rejection of the manuscript in the first review.
As far as I am concerned, these issues have now been resolved.
The results are presented and discussed according to good scientific practices, contributing to the study of the topic.
In my opinion, based on the analysis of the alterations carried out in the manuscript, there has been a significant improvement in the manuscript, which is now suitable for publication.
The authors made the requested corrections in a satisfactory manner.
The authors made the requested corrections in a satisfactory manner.
The authors made the requested corrections in a satisfactory manner.
The authors made the requested corrections in a satisfactory manner.
The three reviewers revealed severe concerns regarding the article. Two recommended rejections of the paper. We offer the possibility to perform a major and significant modification in the article. Providing this opportunity does not guarantee that it can be accepted further. The authors must improve the introduction, rationale, methods description, and discussion drastically.
[# 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. #]
Dear Prof. Clemente,
Thank you for considering our manuscript. We are surprised and sorry about the decision, because we believe the comments leading to the rejection may be based on misunderstanding of our work. We would like to briefly respond to the comments and request your reconsideration. However, we highly respect the editorial board of PeerJ and will accept the rejection if our responses fail to convince you.
According to your email, the major reasons for the rejection are: (1) the method was not validated with gold-standard instrument and (2) the sample size was not calculated.
Response to comment 1: There is currently no “gold-standard instrument” to measure salivary lactate. That was why we developed an LC-MS method in this study, which can be validated for precision and accuracy, using reference standard and well-recognized approaches described in the manuscript. The method validation was conducted in the study, and precision (RSD) and accuracy (recovery) were both reported. In analytical science, the “gold-standard” is normally the reference standard with certified chemical structure and purity. All instruments and methods are validated with it.
Responses to comment 2: We understand sample size is important in study design. However, we have involved as many participants as possible in this study. If the calculated sample size was larger than we included, we cannot change it; and if it was smaller than that we included, it will be fine. That is to say, no matter how big the sample size was, we could not do anything about it. We are happy to add this information and discuss the issue in the revised manuscript, but we do not think this issue directly leads to rejection.
We accept all the other comments and are happy to revise our manuscript accordingly in the resubmission, if we can have the opportunity.
Thank you again for your consideration, we are looking forward to your further reply.
Best regards
Fengjing
As highlighted by one of the reviewers, a fatal flaw is that the authors state that they have developed and validated a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry method for analyzing saliva samples. Method validation should have been performed with gold-standard equipment, with a sample size calculated according to the validation tests applied. Without validity, the data cannot be classified as trustable.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Michelle Ploughman, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Authors,
The manuscript study entitled "Can salivary lactate be used as an anaerobic biomarker?" It is interesting however it presents serious red flags. From the analysis of the manuscript, I am of the opinion that the application of a non-validated method in the study does not allow the manuscript to be suitable for publication. Method validation should have been performed with gold standard equipment, with a sample size calculated according to the validation tests applied, and the study should have been submitted for peer review. Consequently I consider that the manuscript is not suitable to be accepted for publication and this was the report I gave to the Guest Editor
Taking into account the hard work of the authors, here are some amendments and improvements that could be made to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.
The authors state that they have developed and validated a liquid chromatography - mass spectrometry method for the analysis of saliva samples. Method validation should have been performed with gold standard equipment, with a sample size calculated according to the validation tests applied, and the study should have been submitted to peer review.
section Materials & Methods, Data analysis
- please fully cite SPSS Statistics software, version 20 (IBM, USA)
- for all tests used, the authors must indicate the effect size
- in multiple comparisons it is suggested that either the family-wise error rate or the false discovery rate be reported as controlled
Scientific relevance cannot be achieved without respecting the methodological requirements.
The study is really interesting in terms of title and content. The language of expression is fluent and has sufficient order. Introduction, finding and discussion is well design.
The presentation clearly defined the research question that should be relevant and meaningful. The knowledge gap explored was identified and explanations were made about how the study contributed to filling this gap. There are find some sufficient improvements for this study. Please indicate how you determined the number of samples in the article? If power analysis was used, report the details. Can you also mention about the time of day about measurement?
Results are appropriately stated, linked to the original question being investigated, and limited to those supported by the results.
The article needs some spelling and grammar corrections.
The bibliographic references are adequate, however, the authors need to include more specific studies
improving the theoretical reference of the introduction.
Statistical analysis is adequate, but the authors need to interpret the results more critically and objectively.
The methodological procedures are adequate, but they should be better organized within the text according to the sequence suggested by the scientific method.
The results are well described, however the discussion is very superficial and does not support the authors to justify the importance and potential benefits.
Authors should restructure the article's introduction (comments are inserted in the text).
Review the interpretation of statistical analyzes in a more profound and critical way, especially regarding correlation indicators (figure 4). The discussion session should be restructured in order to dialogue with other studies, supporting the evidence presented (comments are inserted in the text).
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.