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.
Dear Dr. Lima,
The original Academic Editor is no longer available and so I am making a decision in my capacity as Section Editor.
You have addressed the concerns of the reviewers, therefore I am happy to recommend your paper for publication.
Dear Dr. Lima,
Thank you for your submission to PeerJ.
It is my opinion as the Academic Editor for your article - Analysis of brain activation and wave frequencies during a sentence completion task: a paradigm used with EEG in aphasic participants - that it requires a number of Minor Revisions.
My suggested changes and reviewer comments are shown below and on your article 'Overview' screen.
Please address these changes and resubmit. Although not a hard deadline please try to submit your revision within the next 21 days.
Yours sincerely.
all recommendations for correcting the paper have been made. Be attentive to the minor's corrections in English grammar.
OK
OK
Proofread the period and quotation marks. When the quotation does not start but ends the sentence, the period is after the quotation marks.
See additional comments.
See additional comments.
See additional comments.
The authors have addressed my concerns accordingly, so I recommend accepting the manuscript in the current version.
Please, note carefully whether each reviewer's observations make sense for the authors. After, send us a new article version for a new valuation.
Regards.
[# 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) #]
A copy desk is needed to check the punctuation, which is not satisfactory, and the need for extensive English revision.
You used two different styles of apostrophes or quotation marks in your document. Both types are acceptable, but it's best to be consistent.
The table needs to be verified.
The hypothesis as well as the problematization are not clear and concise. I suggest redoing it.
Methods should be described in more detail.
The sample should be more detailed.
The sample must be identified as participants and not as patients.
How the sample was selected.
What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the sample?
Could the female predominance be a bias for the results?
If there is a hypothesis, please describe the statistic used to answer your thesis. As well as using descriptive statistics to characterize the sample and justify the percentages used throughout the text.
The statistic needs details as to its procedure.
Reference the validation of the instrument used in the methods.
Dear Authors,
The study is very interesting and relevant to the area of knowledge.
Best regards,
See my additional comments.
See my additional comments.
See my additional comments.
The authors presented a study to analyze brain activation and wave frequencies of aphasic individuals during a sentence completion task, to possibly assist health professionals with the analysis of the aphasic subject's rehabilitation and task redefinition. Though the proposed analysis is interesting, some critical comments need to be addressed before acceptance for publication.
1. In a separate paragraph it is suggested to provide some remarks to further discuss the proposed methods, for example, what are the main advantages and limitations in comparison with existing methods?
2. I believe that it will make this paper stronger if the authors present some insightful implications based on their experimental outcomes. It would be helpful if the authors could interpret the association of EEG patterns with the pathology of aphasia.
3. Some closely related studies have recently been reported about advanced EEG analysis. The authors need to give more review of those studies, such as: Adaptive multi-model knowledge transfer matrix machine for EEG classification; Improving EEG decoding via clustering-based multi-task feature learning; Modern views of machine learning for precision psychiatry.
4. The authors may briefly discuss the potential limitations of the proposed method and what are the future research directions of this study. How other researchers can work on your study to continue this line of research?
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.