Review History

To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on March 17th, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on March 31st, 2014.
  • The first revision was submitted on April 24th, 2014 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on May 2nd, 2014.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor


Authors have improved the manuscript including the suggestions of the referees, therefore now it is in enough quality.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please respond to the minor comments of the reviewers.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No Comments.

Experimental design

Please clarify the temperature of the saline used to induce ARDS.

Validity of the findings

Fig 1,minimum surface tension. Most of the data in Fig 1 has been previously published. Please clarify the new data that has not published before.

Comments for the author

Generally, the data are well presented using the standard model for ARDS. Additional study with longer periods(at least 6hr of study after surfactant treatment) would strength this paper.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

This is a generally well-written article. There are some minor typographical errors that should be corrected. Specifically:

Abstract, line 4: "...absence of specific antidotes besides has...". Either the word "besides" should be deleted or the antidote the authors intended to indicate be included.

Abstract, line 17: "...Mechanism_s_ of action..."

Introduction, line 8: The sentence should end in a period, not a comma.

Experimental design

No comments.

Validity of the findings

It would be helpful to the reader in figures 2 and 3 and in the legends indicating the time-points where the results in improvements in oxygenation and compliance for S-MB+SP-C33 UCLA differ significantly from the other surfactant preparations.

Comments for the author

A sentence clarifying or elaborating on exactly how SP-C33 differs from native SP-C (substituting leucines for valines for example) would be helpful to the reader.

A sentence in the discussion concerning the relatively short-duration of the experiment related to clinical outcomes in ARDS-ALI (not examined in this kind of study) would be worth including.

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.