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.
I invited additional comments from the more critical referee, but have been unable to reach them. The other referee was already fully supportive of the paper being accepted, so rather than delay your manuscript any longer, I have made a decision based on my own evaluation of your manuscript. In my opinion, your rebuttal letter addresses each of the concerns raised by the reviewers. Reading through the revised manuscript it seems to me that you have made the suggested corrections, and I see no reason to delay you any longer. Thus, I am happy to accept your submission and move the manuscript forward into production.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Nigel Andrew, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I apologize for the delay in getting this decision to you - the handling editor was unable to continue and it took a while to sort that out and for me to take over as the Editor.
As you will see both referees see value in your work, and are ultimately supportive of a suitably revised manuscript being published. Having said that however, each also have suggestions for improvement of the manuscript, and one provides rather extensive comments and recommends a major revision of the text. While I tend to agree with many of the comments and suggestions made throughout, they focus largely on clarification, additional detail, interpretation or scholarship. Given that these revisions are editorial in nature and do not require additional analyses or experimental work, I consider these recommendations, while extensive, to be relatively straightforward, and so am returning a decision of minor revision on your manuscript.
Please ensure you address each of the referee comments in your response and that the tracked changes in the manuscript are accurately reflected in your rebuttal letter. We look forward to seeing your revised submission.
See attached PDF
The authors have incorporated all suggested revisions along with including additional necessary clarifications in the resubmitted manuscript. Excellent work.
There are a few minor revisions needed:
Line 112 – Change Fiberglas to fiberglass.
Line 156 – ‘Biopsies were performed using metzenbaum scissors to take a 3-5 mm snip of tissue by one of two…’ Recommend reword biopsy description… Consider instead…’Excisional biopsies were performed using metzenbaum scissors, a 3-5 mm diameter tissue sample was obtained by one of two surgeons (AEK or AH) for the control and experimental groups..’
Line 168 – Change semi colon to comma after ‘et al.’
Line 179-181 - Prior to systemic clove oil injection, heart rate was measured at 8 bpm and 30 bpm in the two subjects of the experimental group where heart rate was monitored. Consider change sentence to ‘Prior to systemic clove oil injection, heart rate was measured in two of the experimental group subjects. Heart rates were 8 bpm and 30 bpm.’
Line 187-188 - In three subjects, where it took up to 15 minutes for cessation
Of movements, up to 4 mL of clove oil was required. Recommend reword sentence to ‘Three subjects had prolonged limb/gill movements and required higher doses of intravascular clove oil, up to 4 ml were administered (or list a range used ‘3-4 ml’)... or something similar.
Line 390 – Insert space after ‘hemolymph,’
Figures 4 and 5 caption abbreviations not evident in the histopath photomicrograph images.
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.