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 December 15th, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 28th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on January 30th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on January 30th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

You adequately addressed all suggestions made by the reviewers of the original manuscript.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

As you will see, both expert reviewers consider your manuscript a well written technical study that adds valuable approaches to the diagnosis of BV. Both reviewers provide some suggestions for further improvement of the paper. In addition, I would suggest you use the term microbiota rather than flora/microflora.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The paper is a technical paper. With some minor translational issues, it is well written and concise. The only technical comment I have is the use of the transport media to generate a Nugent slide. Some readers will state that the media may have a dilution effect on the specimen placed on the slide and could potentially alter a Nugent score. They will need a reference to support the approach, or a sentence discussing this as an experimental limitation.

My comments--

Abstract:
1st sentence: “infection” to “infections”.
1st sentence: run-on sentence, split into two sentences.
2nd sentence: “gold standard” to “research gold standard”.
3rd sentence: “characteristic” to “characteristics”.

Paper:
Line 49: “being” to “with”.
Line 49: “Fluorescence” to “fluorescence”.
Line 52: remove “Nowadays,”.
Lines 174 and 175: “sensibility” to “sensitivity”.
Table 1 is demographically interesting, but not really necessary to the content of the paper.
Table 1: add “With” to “Children”.

Delete Table 1 - it is confusing and adds nothing to the paper

Experimental design

no issues

Validity of the findings

no issues

Comments for the author

see above

·

Basic reporting

The article is an original research that deserves to be published. Provides clinical data provide a novel diagnostic method. Figure recommend that have a lighter walk figure to explain each of the panels containing.

Experimental design

The experimental design seems appropriate

Validity of the findings

The data are robust, it worths to be published

Comments for the author

This is a original manuscript that should be published, minor review in figure caption must be done and minor review in the references

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.