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 Author,
Congratulations! After your diligent work addressing the reviewers' comments, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication in PeerJ. This version is more concise and formal, enhancing clarity and flow.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The Authors have addressed all the remarks. The article can be published.
The Authors have adressed all the remarks. The article can be published.
The Authors have addressed all the remarks. The article can be published.
The Authors have addressed all the remarks. The article can be published.
The authors have adequately addressed all my comments and revised it accordingly.
The manuscript is significantly improved upon the readability and clarity of the manuscript. It is well-structured, designed, and referenced. Therefore, I have no further comments.
The authors have adequately addressed all my comments and revised it accordingly. Therefore, I have no further comments.
I have no further comments.
I appreciate the point-by-point response to my review and I want to congratulate the authors for their hard work.
Dear authors,
The study entitled “Effect of chronic alcohol consumption on oral microbiota in rats with periodontitis” demonstrated excellent findings using an appropriate methodological approach. However, some important points must be clarified in the manuscript. Your article has great potential for publication on PeerJ, but the reviewers have requested substantial changes to be made, mainly in methodology and discussion sessions.
**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.
I am not a native English speaker and I am not in a position to fully judge the professional quality of the English language, but I have noticed some misspelled words or sentences that are ambiguous. So, the quality of the English language must be rechecked.
The references are relatively recent and cover hypotheses, observations and discussions
the structure of the article is well composed. The figures and tables support the hypotheses.
Figure 2 and 3 must also be explained on the figure with arrows (not only in the text)
The results obtained through the bioinformatics analysis support the hypotheses of the study
The study falls within the aims and scope of the PeerJ journal, being a translational experimental medicine research
The article does not mention the accommodation and maintenance conditions of the animals. I suggest the authors to follow the ARRIVE guide (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) see Kilkenny C, Browne W, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Alman DG . NC3Rs Reporting Guidelines Working Group. Animal research: reporting in vivo experiments: the ARRIVE guidelines. J Gene Med. 2010; 12, 561–563. 10.1002/jgm.1473
My observations and questions are:
-how long did the period of adaptation to alcohol last?
- what it means ,,followed by maintenance feeding with the 30% alcohol solution for 10 weeks until the end of the experiment, during which they were forbidden to water”? - is unclear
- how was it determined how much alcohol a rat drinks per day? is there a comparison with water consumption?
-when did the induction of peri-implantitis begin-at what time period from the beginning of the study?
also related to the design of the experiment, another question would be:
were samples cultured on specific culture media for the groups of bacteria in the oral cavity?
The studies were not done in duplicate, so we do not know if there is replication.
But the bioinformatics analysis, which was done professionally and carefully, support the results and conclusions.
I also noticed some small issues in the text, which need to be solved
-not everywhere the genera of bacteria are written in italics
-there are abbreviations where the words are not mentioned in full first
The manuscript is well written, unambiguous and it has enough literature references.
Minor comments:
line 42: write chronic in lowercase - "In rats, Chronic alcohol consumption"
line 58: I suggest to replace "noncommunicable" with non-transmissible
line 99: write administration in lower case - "The alcohol Administration was based"
line 111: I suggest to add "we" before the verb "examine" - "At the end of the tenth week, examine the periodontal"
The methods are described in sufficient detail so that the experiment is replicable.
Did you follow the ARRIVE protocol for your experiment? Animal experimentation requires, in addition to approval by committees, following standardized experimental protocols. Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) is a set of guidelines that was developed to improve the quality of reporting of experiments involving animals. If you use the ARRIVE guidelines I suggest to mention it in your manuscript.
Also, I recommend to mention the limitations of the study, especially the limitations related to the animal model used.
No comment.
No comment.
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.