Next Article in Journal
Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteome Profiling of Extracellular Vesicles Derived from the Cerebrospinal Fluid of Adult Rhesus Monkeys Exposed to Cocaine throughout Gestation
Next Article in Special Issue
Fludrocortisone Induces Aortic Pathologies in Mice
Previous Article in Journal
Feature Reduction for Molecular Similarity Searching Based on Autoencoder Deep Learning
Previous Article in Special Issue
Imaging Techniques for Aortic Aneurysms and Dissections in Mice: Comparisons of Ex Vivo, In Situ, and Ultrasound Approaches
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Endothelial Dysfunction in the Pathogenesis of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Biomolecules 2022, 12(4), 509; https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12040509
by Elise DeRoo, Amelia Stranz, Huan Yang, Marvin Hsieh, Caitlyn Se and Ting Zhou *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Biomolecules 2022, 12(4), 509; https://doi.org/10.3390/biom12040509
Submission received: 30 January 2022 / Revised: 18 March 2022 / Accepted: 27 March 2022 / Published: 28 March 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments/suggestions are in attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the efforts of the authors. The topic could be interesting. However a PRISMA should be addded; a systematic review should be preferred. In table 1,  abbreviations and references are lacking. Pleas add. Moreover, the "take home messages" should be more precise. Finally 3-4 figures should be added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a nice and well written review

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer's comment.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the authors' efforts; however, unfortunately, the overall flow is poor and not well organized despite the attempt for corrections. Furthermore, the grammar and syntax are poor.

Author Response

The authors appreciate the suggestions for improvement provided by the reviewer. With respect to the reviewer’s original comments, while we agree a systematic review on this topic would be of great interest as research in this field grows and targeted clinical questions begin to arise, this is unfortunately beyond the scope of our current article. As suggested, the tables were updated to clarify references where listed, and the conclusion paragraph was edited to clarify the take home messages of the review.

With respect to the reviewer’s comments after the first round of revisions, we appreciate the suggestion to refine the flow and syntax of the article, and have edited the article throughout to improve clarity, flow, and syntax (these newly made edits are shown in track changes).

Back to TopTop