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 satisfactorily addressed all review comments and made the necessary changes to the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Nigel Andrew, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors addressed the main concerns of the reviews. However, the revised manuscript still deserves attention. Please, provide point-to-point responses according to the comments made the Reviewer #1 in the new version of your manuscript.
The manuscript meets to the standard of the journal.
It's clear for experimental design, but some method doesn't clear.
It's necessary to verify the result from the gel electrophoesis by sequencing.
Although the authors have addressed to all inqueries,the sequnce to confirm the gene mutation didn't provide. Moreover, it is not clear how to collect 45 head lice for DNA extraction. One louse was obtained from individual or pooled sample from each individual positive children? What stage of louse was used nymph or adult?
The review process is complete, and two thorough reviews from qualified referees are included at the bottom of this letter. Although there is considerable merit in your paper, we identified some concerns that must be considered in your resubmission. Please, provide a better explanation to the study design and description of the criteria to include or exclude subjects to allow inferences from the readers. It is rigorously needed to include the Ethics statement related to the study. The English language also needs to be improved to make the manuscript clear for readers. The references section must be adjusted to meet the PeerJ criteria. The author must dedicate to answer the points raised with the utmost precision and to make all those reconsiderations in the manuscript to be submitted.
[# 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. #]
The experimental design and the metod didn't provide in detail. Moreover, the ethical concern should be addressed.
It is not clear for the experimental design whther cross-sectional study or prostpective?
The finding of this study is valid and may sever as an important information for pyrethroid resistance mutations of head lice in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
See in the attacted file.
The article written in English and clear, unambiguous, technically. Relevant prior literature should be appropriately referenced. Figures are relevant to the content of the article, of sufficient resolution, and appropriately described and labeled.
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled. The results are well-stated, linked to the original research question and supporting conclusions.
It is an important study because This is the first study in Saudi Arabia to detect prevalance of permethrin resistance-related mutation in human head lice. The study is well-designed and expressed. All the sections are well-written and easy to understand. The authors have clearly described the materials and methods used in their study. However, reviewing the suggestions I have outlined below may improve the manuscript.
- Both voltage-sensitive sodium channel and voltage-gated sodium channel are used in the manuscript. Using one of them may be more understandable for the reader.
- Line 114-165, These sentences should be reconsidered.
-Line 197, ‘’T929I kdr mutation is one of three mutations found in human head lice’’ this sentence should be revised. Indeed, the T929I kdr mutation has been reported to be associated with permethrin resistance at amino acid sequence positions of the house fly VGSC rather than the head lice amino acid sequence. Maybe it would be more correct to write ’T917I instead of ’T929I.
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.