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 authors:
After carefully reviewing the reviewers' comments and the improvements made to the final manuscript, I consider that the current version has the conditions for publication in the PeerJ journal. On behalf of the editorial board, I want to thank you for considering PeerJ for the publication of your manuscript.
Greeting.
Dr. Manuel Jimenez
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Stefano Menini, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors made the requested reviews. I have no other comments to do.
Dear Co-Authors:
Please respond to the reviewers´ comments.
Thank you.
Dr. Manuel Jiménez
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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.
**Language 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The review manuscript on atherosclerosis, gut microbiome, and exercise lacks a thorough methodological search of the literature and a clear exploration of biological plausibility. A comprehensive review of existing research is essential to establish the context and identify gaps in the current understanding. Additionally, the manuscript should delve into the biological mechanisms linking gut microbiome, exercise, and atherosclerosis, ensuring a robust foundation for the proposed study. Addressing these aspects will enhance the manuscript's overall scientific rigor and contribution to the field.
The study presented lacks a systematic search of the literature, diminishing its methodological robustness. To enhance replicability and facilitate the translation of research findings, the authors should provide more detailed information about their methodology, including a clear description of inclusion and exclusion criteria. A comprehensive and well-documented literature review is crucial for establishing the study's context and ensuring that future researchers can replicate the methodology effectively. Addressing these concerns will strengthen the study's scientific validity and contribute to its impact in the research community.
The study's methodology falls short of established standards, making it challenging to determine the internal validity of the findings. Key elements such as article selection, data collection procedures, and data analyses need to adhere to rigorous standards to ensure the reliability of results. Without a robust methodology, the study's overall credibility is compromised, hindering confidence in the reported findings. A thorough revision of the methodology is essential for establishing the study's scientific integrity and contributing to its meaningful impact in the field.
Dear Authors, thank you for your manuscript. In my opinion, the topic is very interesting, but many improvements are needed.
The English you used is not clear and improvements in punctuation and flow are requested.
In my opinion, the beginning paragraphs (1.1, 1.2, 1.3) are well-described. Then, the structure of your review is not very rigorous and professional: the paragraphs are numerated with no logical order (it jumps from 1.3 to 2 and from 2.2 to 3 in the same section) and the manuscript lacks figures and tables. In addition, the main focus of your review did not appear clear in the introduction section, and it is difficult to read the whole work. The structure is confusing, and I could not find a linear thread. In my opinion, you should make your manuscript easier and clearer.
Investigation and methods did not appear rigorous and more effort is needed.
1, a) How many articles did you read?
1, b) How many articles have you selected and included in this study?
A flowchart diagram for article selection is needed.
2) What were the inclusion and/or exclusion criteria for article selection?
Please add a table.
3, a) What is/are the target population/s of your research?
3, b) Are your conclusions valid for men, women, children, older, etc.?
A table with the sample description is needed.
4) Paragraph 2.1-2.2: Exercise is a too-generic term to correlate its effects on AS. What kind of exercise is more effective in improving AS condition? What do you mean by moderate exercise? Maybe you meant moderate-intensity exercise. In my opinion, correction for clarity is necessary. Also, a table that describes how the training parameters could affect AS is needed.
In my opinion, at the actual status, this manuscript is not valid for publication. However, with hard effort, I think that you can improve this work.
Please read the attached report.
Please read the attached report.
Please read the attached report.
Please read the attached report.
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.