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.
Thank you very much for the submission of a revised version of your paper. I have gone through the track-changes manuscript and rebuttal letter and see that the authors addressed the reviewers' concerns and substantially improved the content of the manuscript. So, based on my own assessment as an academic editor, no further revisions are required, and the manuscript may be now accepted for publication in its current form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Many thanks to the authors' responses. I don't have any new questions now.
No new comment.
No new comment.
No new comment.
Your manuscript has been reviewed and requires modifications prior to making a decision. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter. Reviewer1 and Reviewer 3 indicated that the methods and discussion sections should be improved. Review 1 also has a concern about figures. I agree with the evaluation and I would, therefore, request for the manuscript to be revised accordingly.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: We apologize for the delayed decision, but 2 reviewers who had accepted the invitation to review failed to submit their reviews #]
In introduction section, the authors should clarify the therapy strategies of gastric cancer to emphasize the importance of the issue.
No comment.
1.In my opinion, the Fig.S1 should make a swap for Fig.2 to highlight the findings.
2. Type 1 error of multiple testing should be corrected.
This study shows some interesting findings regarding the prognostic biomarker signature for gastric cancer. The major issue is correlation between lncRNA SNPs and GC prognosis, the authors should emphasize the associated findings. In discussion section, at line 276-278, the prediction role of rs12682421 and rs1562430 should be discuss, and provide more information about correlation between therapy approaches and genetic background.
Language is good and article is well organized and structured.
Study was done appropriate larger sample size. Research question, hypothesis and objectives were properly provided.
SNPs were well analyzed by using appropriate stats tool.
Overall good study as done on larger sample size and able to justify the hypothesis and objectives taken with proper results and discussion.
This study discusses the association between Inc-RNA polymorphisms and gastric cancer prognosis in a Chinese cohort. The manuscript is clear and unambiguous. Statistical analysis is comprehensively applied to clinical and experimental data. A few minor concerns and questions regarding the context are listed as following:
1. Line 107 and 108: Does “different human” mean different individuals or different races?
2. Since eight SNPs were analyzed in the same cohort, has linkage disequilibrium be considered in this study? If some of them are associated, influences from other loci need to be considered when analyzing the association between one SNP and GC risk or prognosis.
3. In Table 2, MSTs between different genotypes are not that significant, unfortunately. Even for rs12682421, the log-rank p-value is 0.03 without adjustment. Since statistical analysis involves multiple simultaneous statistical tests in this study, I highly recommend multiple test corrections to avoid type I error. It seems that rs12682421 has the most significant association with GC prognosis in Table 2. Have you further analysis which genotype has the closest relationship with GC survival, or which allele indicate better or worse prognosis?
4. More than two-thirds of references are before 2015, and only 10 references are published in recent 3 years. For innovation points, it’s better to introduce and discuss more recent works and publications.
It's already involved in basic reporting.
It's already involved in basic reporting.
It's already involved in basic reporting.
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.