Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on June 18th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 16th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 21st, 2024 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 24th, 2024.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Nov 24, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

After revisions, all reviewers agreed to publish the manuscript. I also reviewed the manuscript and found no obvious risks to publication. Therefore, I also approved the publication of this manuscript.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No comment

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

No comment

Additional comments

No comment

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

This revised version is suitable for publication.

Experimental design

-

Validity of the findings

-

Additional comments

-

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Oct 16, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The authors are requested to carefully revise the manuscript and answer the questions raised by the reviewers.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Reviewer 1 has provided a PDF of their comments #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Please see my attached comments.

Experimental design

Please see my attached comments.

Validity of the findings

Please see my attached comments.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Although the topic is of interest to the scientific community, this paper should be improved before being considered for publication in any academic journal. Authors should reconsider the main objective of the review paper according to its content. They should try to synthesize and emphasize the study's main findings and avoid long sentences. The methodology is standard and does not introduce innovative techniques that could enhance the research's contribution. Additionally, the paper's structure needs improvement for better readability and coherence. In addition, the conclusion is not well-written and fails to summarize the findings and highlight their significance effectively.

Experimental design

-

Validity of the findings

You must provide all the figures in high resolution and make the labels and legends more legible.

Additional comments

1. Abstract; The authors should revise the abstract; it is too general. Moreover, it could be further developed, as the article has a lot of interesting data. An informative and representative conclusion should be added to the abstract.

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.