Article
Here are some examples of reviewers’ comments:
The abbreviations have not been explained.
Methods to treat blood samples are not adequately explained.
There are far too many findings in the text. Most of them should be presented in tables.
The legend of Table 4 is not sufficiently clear to allow readers to interpret it on a stand-alone basis.
The Discussion section is too wordy. It should be simplified.
These ideas belong to the Introduction and Methods section and should not be reserved for the Discussion section alone.
There are too many spelling and grammar mistakes. The text should be reviewed by an experienced native English speaker
There is no theoretical framework provided. The author may wish to describe the rationale for the study they have conducted.
I recommend the authors highlight the three main findings from figure 1 in the abstract, namely…
There is no note in the Methods section related to permission to use the database or the ethical considerations concerning the use of animals for the experiments.
The statement that death rates were extremely low and there was no significant difference needs to be justified.
Here is an example of the opening paragraph of a letter written to answer reviewers:
We thank the reviewers for their comments, and the amount of time they have invested in this review. We are grateful for the opportunity to revise our manuscript with clarifications and corrections. We have dealt with each referee’s comments in turn and responded to them.