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.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on February 27th, 2020 and was peer-reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on April 17th, 2020.
  • The first revision was submitted on May 27th, 2020 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on July 29th, 2020 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 7th, 2020.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Aug 7, 2020 · Academic Editor


Thank you for addressing the concerns in this revised version. I am happy to accept this review article for publication. Congratulations!

Version 0.2

· Jul 2, 2020 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Thank you for addressing the concerns and making the edits that the Reviewer requested. I have read over the revised version carefully. There were a number of small grammar issues, so I took the liberty of fixing these in the attached pdf document.

I also include several comments that need to be addressed before this can be accepted for publication. Specifically, there are several sections that include contradictory statements, presumably because the literature has conflicting results. But the way it is presented is extremely confusing, since you will state an overall topic sentence, followed by some supporting studies, and then include some completely contradictory evidence without any discussion or explanation. You need to provide some context or explanation for such contradictory findings, either taken from the primary literature or from your own personal perspective.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Apr 17, 2020 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Two expert reviewers have read your manuscript and provided feedback to me. While both agree that there is potential in this review article, they have pointed out that it needs major improvement in terms of the clarity of the writing and the transitions between sections, and that it would greatly benefit from editing by a native English speaker before being ready for publication. If you choose to submit a revised manuscript, please address these major concerns as well as all the points raised by reviewer #1 in his comments below and in the annotated pdf file that he has attached.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.  It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter.  Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The review has good references, is cross disciplinary and introduces the subject clearly. However, the field has been reviewed recently:

However, this review focuses more on HDAC inhibitors that the other reviews.

Experimental design

The review has good organization, but it needs to be edited to flow better. Presently all of the data is there, but it is more of a list of study findings organized by topic.

Validity of the findings

The conclusions are well stated, but introductory sentences are not always present and more work is needed to identify unresolved questions and future directions. Also the concept that ZO-1 is a scaffolding protein for the tight junction and how it may regulate the paracellular pathway should be brought up in more detail. For example, how might it translate to barrier function?

Additional comments

I have attached some minor comments in the pdf as well

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

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.