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.
As recommended by the reviewers, the article can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comments
No comments
No comments
I accept the artiucle.
Now it is more clear!
the study design was already good, now is more clear how they did it
The level of evidence is now clear and more understandeable for the audience, thank you.
I think this new version is more solid and clear, have a nice day
As recommended by the reviewers, the article requires minor revisions.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
Language and Clarity: The manuscript is generally understandable.
Structure and References: The structure is logical and flows well from introduction to conclusion. The references are abundant and reflect recent research.
Background and Motivation: The rationale for this review is clearly stated, and the intended audience is well defined.
Methodology Description: The literature search methodology is clearly described, using both PubMed and CNKI, and includes English and Chinese sources, which is commendable.
Comprehensiveness and Balance: The review focuses on recent studies and aims to be comprehensive.
Conclusion Appropriateness: The conclusions are consistent with the content and appropriately highlight unresolved questions and future directions.
Logical Flow and Support: The discussion of mast cell activation pathways (both IgE-dependent and independent) is detailed and supported by scientific evidence.
Strengths
1. The review provides a thorough summary of recent findings on mast cells, especially regarding signaling pathways, which will be valuable to specialists.
2. Figure 1 is a helpful visual aid that enhances understanding.
Areas for Improvement
1. Author described “3.1 IgE-dependent immunological mechanisms” and “3.2 Non-immunological mechanism” as opposite expression. But, I think that 3.2 Non-IgE-dependent immunological mechanisms is better.
2. This review also targets clinicians. Therefore, I believe it would be beneficial to include current treatment options targeting mast cells, as well as potential future therapies, within the review.
I find this article a useful compendium on the state of the art on research in mastocyte pathway in rhinitis. The original figure can be useful because there are a lot similar involving Il5 and th2 pathways but there is a lack in Mastocytes.
Language is clear and phrases consequential.
The only flaw I can find is in lack of clarity in article selection and presentation of the consequential findings.
I see no signs of heavy AI use in the manuscript
I have some perplexities about clarity in the methods.
RR- 68-70 It could be useful to include the query string you used and if there were time limitations ( for example: from 2020, from 1975)
RR72-73 Can you specify the high scientific standards? Can you add an example of a non-included article?
RR245-251 this is an example of the issue: all articles are treated as peer in evidence.
There are articles that conflicts one witch another? Others with higher levels of confidence? Articles with weak stanrdards or confronts with different models as murine, in vistro or human?
Findings are presented in a clear and logic structures.
In this kind of work novelty is secondary and i think that a solid explicative review can be a good foundation for study and research.
I liked the figure, clear and crafty made.
The strength of the findings is as strong as the selection methods and that is the motive that makes me ask for clarity.
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.