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 attending to the final comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I'm afraid that some key issues remain to be addressed. You must explain how you selected the studies for review, focus the writing as outlined and provide a direction of travel for the field.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
1. It could highlight its broader implications, such as its potential applications in clinical practice or interdisciplinary collaborations, and how the findings connect to fields like bioengineering or material science.
2. It is unclear if the review is aimed primarily at researchers, clinicians, or both.
3. The introduction could better highlight the specific clinical challenges or knowledge gaps being addressed.
1. There is no explicit discussion about how studies were selected to avoid bias. For instance, were certain years, journals, or languages excluded?
2. Some citations appear incomplete or contain errors, such as "Error! Reference source not found," which undermines the review's credibility. Please complete them.
1. There is no clear suggestion of actionable steps, such as which experiments or studies should be prioritized to address the gaps.
2. The article lacks a clear goal in the introduction. Please indicate how the findings could address the identified clinical challenges or gaps in knowledge.
standard
standard
standard
make sure that the ethic/ICUC and also
proof read some mesh space and also the references
Both the reviewers are minded to accept, but make some suggestions for changes. In particular, pay attention to defining the need for this review, expand your introduction and make sure you include all the different environments.
The article contains several typographical errors and inconsistencies in language, which can detract from the overall clarity and professionalism of the work such as
1. Abstract: Recheck “osteogenetic”. This word should be “osteogenic”
2. Line 246: Recheck "osteogenesis differentiation" It should be "osteogenic differentiation"
Therefore, please recheck and correct typographical errors to ensure the text is clear and professional.
No comment
It does not deeply indicate future research directions and further development. Based on your findings, discussion and conclusion from experiments, technologies, or clinical trials will help guide further exploration and application of your work.
No comment
The authors described "The effect of Wnt pathway on osteogenic differentiation of periodontal ligament stem cells in different environments" that already published by previous researchers,
a. Authors need to state the differences from the other previous reviews and to justify to write this review in the introduction
b. the Introduction section is not enough. The authors must include additional background information
a. it is required to contain advantages or disadvantages of PDLSCs in different environments
a. in conclusion section, you should aggregate all information of PDLSCs in different environments,
b. I also suggest to add a graphical abstract to simplify the readers and or It would be better to present a figure that crystalize authors conclusion
a. Please choose a better quality image for figure 1
b. Additionally, some language and grammar issues are also found in the manuscript and some sentences need to be rewritten.
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.