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.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on October 29th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on November 30th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on December 19th, 2024 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on December 23rd, 2024.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Dec 23, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

Congratulations to you for a complete revision as per the suggestions made y reviewers.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Revision version can be accepted.

Experimental design

is ok now.

Validity of the findings

is ok now.

Additional comments

no

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Dear Editor,

The authors have made edits based on my suggestions.

Best regards.

Experimental design

-

Validity of the findings

-

Additional comments

-

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Nov 30, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The two reviewers have made significant comments on the manuscript (annotated) and in the attached document. They provide significant suggestion to modify and revise the manuscript. As such the revised paper would be a major change from the current version of the paper. If you choose to revise, please make sure that you respond to reviewer in a separate document how you have made use of the suggestions and what were the changes made. The revised paper will be reviewed by the same reviewers again.

Thanks for your interest in the journal.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

See comments in the pdf.

Experimental design

See comments in the pdf.

Validity of the findings

See comments in the pdf.

Additional comments

See comments in the pdf.

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

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

-

Experimental design

-

Validity of the findings

-

Additional comments

See attached PDF

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.