Review History

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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on January 13th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 5th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on February 17th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on February 18th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Feb 18, 2015 · Academic Editor

Accept

I would like to thank you for addressing the reviewers comments which helped in improving the manuscript.

Download author's response letter - submitted Feb 17, 2015

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Feb 5, 2015 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please address the minor revisions suggested by the reviewers.

·

Basic reporting

Fine

Experimental design

Fine

Validity of the findings

No comments

Additional comments

The review entitled “Evolution of a research field- a micro (RNA) example” tracks the journey of miRNA field since its discovery in 1993. It is a well timed and an interesting article that might be read with interest by people working in the miRNA field. Few comments-

1. Line 258- The hallmarks of miRNA research must be discussed as a separate section. It is important.
2. Line 59- ....Scientific knowledge is produced and distributed.
3. Line 79- Authors need to mention that based on current literature miRNAs are known to increase transcript levels as well and give suitable references for the same.

Cite this review as

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Additional comments

When analyzing publications on a per country basis (eg Fig. 1) it is unclear why data from the constituent countries of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) are considered separately, especially since government Research Council spending occurs on a UK -wide basis. The authors should comment on their reasons for this classification.

Cite this review as
- submitted Jan 13, 2015

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.