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 for your resubmission and modifying the manuscript based on the reviewers comments. I am happy to recommend the revised version for publication in PeerJ. Best wishes
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
not comments
The language is very clear and professional this time.
No comment.
No comment.
The authors have put so much effort to make the manuscript a better one than the previous version. The manuscript is much better understood with all corrections that the reviewers suggested. They also added legends and modified some figures based on reviewers' comments. This version of manuscript is a good read now.
Please see the reviewer's comments and I appreciate you considering them to improvise the manuscript. I do feel the manuscript requires more details on CRISPR methodology used. and please do highlight the novelty of the study and the limitations of the study as well. I strongly recommend getting your manuscript read and reviewed by a Science English expert before resubmission.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language needs to be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). #]
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
This study has been well done. However, Major revisions are needed. First, there are many errors of program and syntax in the manuscript which should be entirely revised. Second, the originality of the work is very limited. The authors have performed quite similar studies on the serotyping of Salmonella with similar methods in recently published articles. Third, it is not easy to understand the inconsistence of the number of Salmonella isolates (Line 27:26 isoaltes, Line 36: 68 isolates,Figure 7: 64 patients).
Wisitipanit and colleagues describe in their paper a technic to type and characterize Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica Enteritidis, Typhimurium and its monophasic variant. The text is well-written and the introduction brings the sufficient basis for the reader to understand the context.
The experiments are very well described and detailed.
no comment
The text should be amended to have the species and the gene name in italics.
The English language in the manuscript should be improved to clearly understand what the authors wanted to say. Grammatically it should also be very sound.
I have no issues with the authors experimental design for this study.
In materials & methods, the authors mentioned that they used 28 stool samples (line 107) but in the results section they only mentioned about 26 isolates (lines 252,294, 310). They also mentioned 16 isolates dominated in 3 HRM profiles but the numbers they provided did not prove that (line 253-254). It is suggested that they should check with all the numbers and percentages they provided in first paragraph of the results section.
In line 264 while explaining figure 2, they wrote isolates 458 and 378 but in actual figure it says 454.
Figure 4 does not have full legend.
In figure 5 legend, they mentioned about 25 clinical isolates but in the results sections they wrote 26 isolates. They also did not show A and B in their original figure.
Figure 6 was not labeled as A, B and C.
In the discussions, the authors need to provide more explanations about why their methods are better than the existing methods. They also need to write in more detailed way the advantages and limitations of their assay. They also should mention what can be done to improve it further. In the discussions, I would suggest them to describe the scope of their assays.
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.