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.
Thank you for your thoughtful responses to the reviewer comments throughout the review process.
Authors have added the additional references fortifying this paper. Approved.
Reviewer has already previoulsy commented. Approved.
Reviewer has previously commented. Approved.
Excellent revisions. Approved.
Thank you for your responses to the previous reviews. Please address the remaining comments from the reviewer, including the potential addition of references and the addition of a brief discussion of changes in ocular rigidity and the potential influence of these changes on accommodation.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should *only* be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
The authors have done a great job at elevating this work to scholarly practicioner levels. I have added a few key literature references and some very recent ones that will bolster the research ( see comments in PDF). The article now reads very professional and covers the topic at a moderate to advanced level. There is an excellent reason to publish this research as it fills a gap in the comprehensive understanding of the elements that participate in the consequences and pathophysiology of presbypia in one written work. The purpose of the study and the problem statement is clear.
The aim of the paper was nicely written with a rigorous review of the most important literature on the topic both historical and modern understanding of accommodation and disaccommodation. The methods were clearly stated and researchers stated bias and limitations. Sources are adequately cited and I have suggested a couple additional references to fill out the gaps in accommodative anatomy and effects of age which will enhance the authors' aim.
The novelty of the paper is the extraordinary focus on the ciliary muscles and their morphological, biomechanical and physiological role in accommodation , disaccommodation for vision and IOP changes with age. Very little focus exists in literature with this much specificity to the ciliary muscles. The conclusions identify continued gaps in the literature and a much needed suggestion to explore further questions about these important anatomical and physiological phenomena of the accommodation and disaccommodation functions of the eye.
Please see my added suggestions for enhancing the research wtih a few additional well published references supporting the whole eye impact of age as well as a recent publication that justifies the research (BCLA Clear 2024) newly published.
Please address the many additional comments from reviewer #4, who has provided a number of specific comments in an annotated version of the manuscript.
The article is significantly improved from the original submission.
Study design is appropriate.
The article is significantly improved from the original submission.
The article is significantly improved from the original submission.
See below
See below
See below
I have read the new version and I think it is good for publication in my opinion. I want to thank the authors for their efforts in the revisions and responses.
I have left copius notes on the document for moderate revisions and reorganization of content and review of more recent references.Study
Study design is ok, authors need to disclose limitations and bias. Scholarly practicioner grammar is still and issue. At very least they need to run Grammarly. At best, they need an English editor. Most of my suggestions were word choice, grammar and sentencce structure aside from the critque in the core study topic ciliary muscle.
The very most lacking section is the sectino that is the fulcrum of the apaper the ciliayr muscle. It is clear they have not read all sides of the controvery of the conundrum of Presbyopia giving its name the "Holy Grail" > I tried to give good recommendations of grammar, sentence structre, word choice. Most importantly the ciliary muscle core section needs rewritten extensively.
Grammar, and writing style still not meeting journal standards. Run through Grammarly, look at my suggestions and send to an English editpr if possible.
Here is the link to my comments: https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:4e2bfdbd-793d-4df1-a9ae-3bde6061e9fe
Here is my review and comments: https://acevisiongroup.filemail.com/d/prissxcxsmzfycy
Thank you for your submission. While the reviewers believe that this paper could be a good addition to the literature, there are many comments that will need to be addressed. Of particular concern is the grammar and writing style in the paper. The reviewers have provided a number of specific comments on this. Please carefully consider their recommendations. In addition, there are other comments from the reviewers that may require additions or clarification.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language should be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The paper is generally well written. However, it would be improved by editing for English.
Literature is appropriately cited throughout.
The structure of the article is appropriate.
The review is of broad, cross-disciplinary interest and within the scope of the journal.
This field has not been recently reviewed.
The introduction adequately introduces the subject of the review.
The article is within the aims and scope of the journal.
The article represents a critical analysis of existing knowledge in the field.
Methods should be described in greater detail regarding search terms and inclusion criteria.
The survey methodology appears to be appropriate, but this should be clarified by improving the methods.
Sources are adequately cited and paraphrased.
The review is well organized and coherent.
The conclusions are appropriate given the scope of the review.
The arguments are well supported and achieve goals set out in the introduction.
The conclusion adequately identifies future directions.
The idea that zonular tension is insufficiently relieved in the aging eye to achieve accommodation is raised several times in this paper. It seems worth mentioning whether there is any direct evidence of zonular tension in the fully accommodated eye.
In the abstract, “ciliary monkeys” should be “rhesus monkeys”
See comments on PDF. A check mark is used to signify there are no concerns. A letter X mark is used to signify there are concerns that need to be addressed as they make the manuscript unpublishable in its current form.
See comments on PDF. A check mark is used to signify there are no concerns. A letter X mark is used to signify there are concerns that need to be addressed as they make the manuscript unpublishable in its current form.
See comments on PDF. A check mark is used to signify there are no concerns. A letter X mark is used to signify there are concerns that need to be addressed as they make the manuscript unpublishable in its current form.
See comments on PDF. A check mark is used to signify there are no concerns. A letter X mark is used to signify there are concerns that need to be addressed as they make the manuscript unpublishable in its current form.
No comment
No comment
No comment
This work is a large review about what occurs to the ciliary muscle and aging, considering its morphology, its structure, its anatomy and its relationship with the other structures of the eye.
This is a job well done. It is very interesting to be able to evaluate all the available information published to understand how much we still need to study the ciliary muscle, accommodation to finally understand a little further presbyopia.
This paper is a relevant topic and an adequate review of past and current literature, illuminating gaps in our research and identifying key observations in presbyopia pathogenesis. The major issues with this paper are poor translation to English, grammar, and use of sentence structure, as well as a lack of proper citation requirements and some relevant references. Sentence structure is needed. I have commented, and if authors can follow guidelines for suggestions and correct grammar content, it is quite good. The article fails to meet academic grammar and sentence structure standards, but if the following suggestions could meet hte standards.
The article is within the journal's scope and represents a comprehensive literature overview. Sources are cited but must be corrected to reflect proper MLA citation style. I recommend a few resources to add relevance to the paper. The review is logically organized and well done on framework and scope.
The impact factor is high since the culmination of information on presbyopia fills a gap in the literature on the focus of the ciliary muscle function and its role in presbyopia. The conclusions are well-stated and support the literature review. The paper is well developed, with the main problems being grammar and English translation. The Conclusion identifies unresolved questions and further direction in future studies to solve gaps in research. The novelty is present since the review is over a multi-decade evolution of thinking in presbyopia.
I have extensively reviewed and commented on the PDF so that authors can make specific corrections to this paper for academic presentation. I would hope this guidance supports its publication. Despite minor edits needing to be addressed in grammar, referencing and MLA citation style, this paper is a needed review and publication in the field..
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.