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 September 3rd, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on October 17th, 2014.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 3rd, 2014 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on November 19th, 2014.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

The revised version of the manuscript is improved and it's now acceptable for publication.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The reviewers found merit in your paper but also lack of practical information that preclude publishing it in its present form. The manuscript will be improved by addition of information on clinical data obtained by randomized controlled or observational studies and indications about the use of heparin in clinical practice during pregnancy. Practical implications of the in vitro findings should be discussed.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript is in a well written English

Experimental design

no comments

Validity of the findings

Conclusions are adequate.

Comments for the author

The manuscript is well written. Authors should add a final paragraph reporting
- indications to use of heparins in clinical practice during pregnancy
- practical implications of the reported in vitro findings, in terms of future research or future clinical trials.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The authors report on mechanisms possibly involved in the improvement of implantation and placentation by heparins.

Experimental design

This is not a systematic review, it seems a "narrative" review, but this is not clearly reported by authors. If I have correctly understood the Scope of the journal this type of article is not acceptable.

Validity of the findings

This review focuses on the role played by heparins in implantation and placentation.
Data are properly reported and the paper is well written. However, the review could be improved by adding information on clinical data from RCTs or observational studies.

Comments for the author

This review is interesting and well written. It could be improved by adding clinical data from RCTs or observational studies.

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.