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 September 10th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on November 18th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on December 2nd, 2024 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on December 6th, 2024.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Dec 6, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

Congratulations!
Yours,
Yoshi
Prof. Yoshinori Marunaka, M.D., Ph.D.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

·

Basic reporting

The authors addressed all reported issues.
Congratulations!

Experimental design

The authors addressed all reported issues.
Congratulations!

Validity of the findings

The authors addressed all reported issues.
Congratulations!

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No comment

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

No comment

Additional comments

Dear Editor,
The authors have made the article more understandable by taking the suggested corrections into consideration. If you find it appropriate, it can be accepted for publication as is.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Nov 18, 2024 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please revise your manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.

Yours,
Yoshi
Prof. Yoshinori Marunaka, M.D., Ph.D.

[# 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 #]

·

Basic reporting

To my opinion, the authors presented a very interesting and detailed investigation of the cerebral arterial circle fenestration variants. They have used professional English throughout their manuscript. Everything was submitted properly along with their manuscript, while the figures are of high quality.
However, I want to point out some minor basic issues. Although the authors present results of the cerebral fenestrations, they are only depicting basilar artery figures. Therefore, I recommend to enhance your manuscript with figures from the other locations, as they are mentioning in Table 1.
The references that they are provided are up-to-date; however, a similar comment with the previous one arose. To my opinion, as an anatomists, the authors did not report the prevalence of cerebral arterial circle fenestrations which is of importance when the main point of your manuscript is these variations (I will provide the most adequate references in the following sections). Thus, I recommend to add a relevant paragraph or section to your discussion.

Experimental design

The primary research question, methods and results were well-defined by the authors.

Validity of the findings

The results and their conclusions are interesting, well described and they are adding something new to the current literature.

Additional comments

References Suggestions:
- VA + BA fenestration: Uchino A, et al. Fenestrations of the intracranial vertebrobasilar system diagnosed by MR angiography. Neuroradiology. 2012 May;54(5):445-50. doi: 10.1007/s00234-011-0903-x.
- ACA fenestration: Uchino A, et al. Anterior cerebral artery variations detected by MR angiography. Neuroradiology. 2006 Sep;48(9):647-52. doi: 10.1007/s00234-006-0110-3.
- AComA fenestration: Triantafyllou G, et al. The anterior communicating artery variants: a meta-analysis with a proposed classification system. Surg Radiol Anat. 2024 May;46(5):697-716. doi: 10.1007/s00276-024-03336-7.
- MCA fenestration: Uchino A, et al. Middle cerebral artery variations detected by magnetic resonance angiography. Eur Radiol. 2000;10(4):560-3. doi: 10.1007/s003300050960.

d[# 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 #]

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

It is a good study that will fill a missing area in the literature. It would be better if the minor revisions I sent in the attachment are corrected.

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

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.