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.
After assessing the revision by myself, I can confirm that the authors have addressed all the reviewers' concerns and the manuscript is now ready for publication in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Your manuscript has now been reviewed by two external reviewers. While the reviewers think that your work is methodologically sound and the results are robust, both of them raised significant concern about the writing and/or language usage. Therefore, I would like to request you to make careful revisions accordingly, preferably with the help of an English-proficient colleague or professional language service. Besides, as microbiome data often contain a high proportion of zeros and are heavily right-skewed, non-parametric tests, such as Sign test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test, should be used instead of paired t-test.
Major revisions in both the writing logistics and language aspects are desperately needed to promote the quality of English. Too many wording errors and inaccurate or incomplete statements appear in the text, making it simply impossible to mark the concrete lines in which these occur.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
1. Major revisions in both the writing logistics and language aspects are desperately needed to promote the quality of English. Too many wording errors and inaccurate or incomplete statements appear in the text, making it simply impossible to mark the concrete lines in which these occur.
2. Abstract: The logic of the whole paragraph is not good. Please re-organize it.
3. The background or introduction section lacks sufficient detail to provide context as to why certain aspects or factors are explored.
There English is generally good in this manuscript, however there are minor grammatical errors, I suggest an additional proofreading of the article prior to publication.
Generally the research question, methods and design were good. There were a few minor comments and suggestions I annotated in the manuscript.
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.