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.
Thank you for addressing the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Brenda Oppert, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The article has been revised well by authors using professional English as indicated in the annotated pdf. Literature references are sufficient field background/context provided. Introduction and methodology sections have been revised very well by addition of citations.
This article shows professional article structure, figures, and tables. Raw data has also been provided wherever required. Figures' captions have been revised well now.
Problem statement has also been revised as indicated previously.
Results presented are relevant to the hypothesis or the problem.
The article manifests the original primary research within the aims and scope of the journal. Research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful. It has been stated comprehensively that how this research fills an identified knowledge gap. Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard. Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate. Appropriate citations have been added to strengthen the methodology adopted.
As analyzed previously, the validity of the findings, Impact and novelty have been observed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated. All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled. Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
I commend the authors for their extensive data set, compiled over many years of detailed fieldwork. This manuscript has been revised and written in professional, unambiguous language. Introduction, methodology and discussion sections have been improved as suggested previously.
I suggest authors to go through all the comments and address them in the revised version.
[# 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) #]
Professional English use was observed lacking in different sections which has been indicated in the annotated pdf.
Literature references are sufficient field background/context provided. However, introduction and methodology sections lack appropriate citations and have been indicated in the annotated pdf.
This article shows professional article structure, figures, and tables. Raw data shared wherever required. However, figures captions require revision which have been indicated.
Results presented are relevant to the hypothesis or the problem. However, problem should be revised as indicated in the annotated pdf file attached.
The article manifests the original primary research within the aims and scope of the journal.
Research question is NOT well defined though it is relevant & meaningful. It should be revised to state comprehensively how this research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate. However, some areas require suitable citations to strengthen the methodology adopted.
Impact and novelty well assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
I commend the authors for their extensive data set, compiled over many years of detailed fieldwork. This manuscript should be revised and written in professional, unambiguous language. Introduction, methodology and discussion sections should be improved and should be improved before Acceptance.
The authors can consider elaborating on this for the uninitiated readers regarding which are the other phases other than virtual screening (optimisation etc.): "Computer-aided drug design is used in one or more phases of the drug discovery procedure."
"From here, the 3D structures in the .sdf format were upgraded to Python (Jupyter Notebook)..."
Were the structures upgraded by adding more details? Or was it just uploaded to the software?
The authors should consider mentioning if any they feel there is any limitation to their study
Some minor typographical errors like
"The third step is to view the strcutures on the DS, form the .csv file delet all the contents and retain..."
"To the best of our knowledge this is the firsy web platform...."
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.