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).
The present version has been satisfactorily improved oever the first one.
While one reviewer had no remark, the suggestions and criticisms of the other reviewer suggest that more than minor revision is needed. Please, pay attention to these remarks and explain, point by point, how you have dealt with. A version with all changes limelighted is, to me, also essential.
The manuscript “Synthesis and anti-tubercular activity of 3-substituted benzo[b]thiophene-1,1-dioxides by Chandrasekera S et al,” describes the in vitro screening and cytotoxicity of BTD series against MTB.
The anti TB screening and culture conditions to be explained little more
Since authors themselves have concluded that these NCEs are primarily ineffective against MTB, thus it does not leave any space to comment upon the molecules. Although their prospective modifications could be potential as anti-TB compounds.
1. Would be better to know that these compounds do not have more than one enatiomer. This may affect the cytotoxicity issue.
2.The studies are very preliminary but in context of lead optimization it may be useful for the scientific community to design further.
3. The drafting of manuscript is poor and need to be re-written before the final acceptance.
4. Compounds 3a to 3e have low MIC. I’m wondering to know, whether they have been tried lower than 3.12 uM. It would be preferable to provide SI index in the same table.
Recommendations: Manuscript can be accepted after minor revisions.
Well drafted article. Interesting results and can be considered for publication.
Article is well drafted. Interesting results and can be considered for publication as it is.
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.