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.
Thanks for considering the Peerj journal. Please address the queries raised by the reviewers. Additionally, address the following queries-
1. No keywords are mentioned in the abstract.
2. Could you tell me the reason for doing this research?
3. What will be the impact of the findings?
4. Why the search timeline was only for the last ten years?
5. Line 84-86, not clear, needed further clarification. If possible, could you show it using a chart or diagram?
6. Mention the key variables and how they are measured.
7. Why did you perform the K-S test? Are they not continuous variables?
8. Why only the Baidu search was used? Why not Google search?
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
In this study, the researchers aimed to study the relationship between secretory otitis media (SOM) and its neighboring organ diseases, as well as the changes in their incidence during the COVID-19 epidemic in 2020 based on Internet big data.
The study is done in 2020 and it is quite old. For the investigators, is possible to refine the article and add the latest data? The authors can use the same keywords and do the search strategy and see the results. Maybe only some new articles can be added. These can add value to the article.
In the abstract, it is better to add the conclusion in more detail.
The researchers used Baidu and Google to search the article. There are other reliable scientific sources such as Scopus, and Web of science. So why they used only two, please give more clarification.
In the discussion, details about COVID-19 are added which are not necessary. They need to focus on the relationship between secretory otitis media (SOM) and its neighboring organ diseases. They can add some of their incidence in COVID-19.
no comment except enriched the references and language pattern as more professional.
Found highly technical and maintained the ethical standard of the Journal.
Statistically sound & controlled.
Avoid the worlds like I, we as used in the Materials & Methods.
Make more professional/research language as such-- this paper, the study instead of using I or we.
Raw data contains some Chinese features.
The knowledge gap needs to be clarified in more detail.
Data analysis methods need to be clarified rigorously.
A tabular format should be used to present the results of the analysis. Based on research findings, a recommendation is needed.
For the raw data, some information was not written in English. I suggest there should be an interpretation in English of the Chinese words or figures as the case may be.
No comment
No comment
I commend the authors for their detailed work which was written professionally and to the standards of the journal.
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.