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 January 13th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 4th, 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)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

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

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · 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

Comments for the author

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.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

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.

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.