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.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on August 2nd, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 17th, 2014.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 9th, 2014 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on September 16th, 2014.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

The present version has been satisfactorily improved oever the first one.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

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.

·

Basic reporting

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.

Experimental design

The anti TB screening and culture conditions to be explained little more

Validity of the findings

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.

Comments for the author

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.

·

Basic reporting

Well drafted article. Interesting results and can be considered for publication.

Experimental design

Appropriate

Validity of the findings

Good

Comments for the author

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.