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 29th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 23rd, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on March 4th, 2015 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 9th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

The revision has addressed all the comments except a minor typo (see attached annotated PDF). Please correct this in your final proof as indicated.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

Please check the highlighted areas and do the needful.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please address the minor concerns raised by the reviewers. The references citation format is outlined in the author guidelines, available online.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Very interesting study comparing physical characteristics of different dental resin-based composites. The article is well presented and the study well designed.

Experimental design

Well designed study. It would help the reader, however, to know which shade was used and how many specimens were produced (sample size of the study).

Validity of the findings

The conclusions of the study are supported by the result, however, see comments on the Experimental Design.

Comments for the author

Well written manuscript, very interesting topic. The manuscript would need minor revisions:
1) Shade of the products;
2) Sample size for each test
3) punctuation at the Reference List. It is missing or inconsistent.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

A well done study. Need to simplify the results as explained in the Summary, Abstract and conclusions. Grammatical corrections required.

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

The type of composites rather than the trade names need to be referred.The page numbers of the references are not as per the guidelines.

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.