Review for 10.1186/s12876-021-01707-7 (2021)

Reviewer’s report
Title: 
Gene Expression Profiling of Inflammatory Cytokines in Esophageal
Biopsies of Different Phenotypes of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: a cross-
sectional study
Version: 
1 
Date: 
08 Oct 2020
Reviewer's report:
PEER REVIEWER ASSESSMENTS: 
OBJECTIVE - Full research articles: is there a clear objective that addresses one
or several testable research questions? (Brief or other article types: is there a
clear objective?)
No - there are major issues
DESIGN - Is the current approach (including controls and analysis protocols)
appropriate for the objective?
No - there are major issues
EXECUTION - Are the experiments and analyses performed with sufficient
technical rigor to allow confidence in the results?
No - there are major issues
STATISTICS - Is the use of statistics in the manuscript appropriate?
No - there are issues with the statistics in the study
INTERPRETATION - Is the current interpretation/discussion of the results
reasonable and not overstated?
No - there are major issues
OVERALL MANUSCRIPT POTENTIAL - Has the author addressed your
concerns sufficiently for you to now recommend the work as a technically sound
contribution? If not, can further revisions be made to make the work technically
sound?
No - manuscript has some fundamental flaw(s)
PEER REVIEWER COMMENTS: 
GENERAL COMMENTS: Although the authors have somewhat extended and
completed the manuscript as suggested by reviewers and editor, I still find it
lacking publication quality. One of the main questions was the level of the
cytokines and MMPs studied in the healthy biopsies (adjacent macroscopically
normal mucosa), and the data has not been shown in the comparison. Besides,
the quality of the writing needs to be improved in order for the readers to be able
to follow up the study and obtain useful information (it is still difficult to
understand which of the mRNA levels is significant in relation to which other,
for instance). Overall, this manuscript is still not of sufficient scientific quality.
REQUESTED REVISIONS: 
The authors analyze samples with just one method, and do not even show the
tabulated results for this (for instance 
median, range; in the total disease group,
divided by age/gender, etc.). 
The results for the healthy adjacent mucosa need to be shown, I find it difficult
to believe there are no differences between the levels of MMPs in the normal and
the erosive disease tissue, for instance. A better design should have been
implemented and the mRNA levels should have been compared between disease
and control, not between gene/housekeeping gene, and this should have been
reflected in the same graph, as asked in the previous revision. Besides, better
statistical tests need to be selected, Dunn´s is mostly appropriate after ANOVA
to find which groups drive the significant difference, but not for many groups
and not when there is a control group. The writing needs to be improved also,
especially in the results (in some cases the authors have just added the figure
legend in the middle of the text without further links or explanation).
Publons Reviewer Recognition
. Springer Nature can send verification of this
review directly to Publons (a subsidiary of Clarivate Analytics). If you would
like to take advantage of this service, please click on the “Yes” option below.
Your name, email address, title of the reviewed manuscript, name of the journal,
and date of your review submission (the “Review Data”) will then be transmitted
to Publons after the final decision on the manuscript has been made. If you have
already registered at Publons, they will notify you of the receipt of this review
and update your profile 
as per your settings and their policy. If you are not
registered with Publons, you will receive an email from them asking you to
register in order for them to be able to recognize your review on your new
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivative metadata
for the benefit of Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the
sensitivity of such information. For example, Publons may verify your record as
a reviewer by updating your profile published on its webservice if you have
registered for such service or help editors to identify candidate reviewers. Please
find the details of processing in Publons’ privacy policy
https://publons.com/about/terms
No
Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following
questions:
1
. 
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or
salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially
from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2
. 
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way
gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now
or in the future?
3
. 
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the
content of the manuscript?
4
. 
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an
organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of
the manuscript?
5
. 
Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6
. 
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this
paper?
If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing
interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
This reviewer has been recruited by a partner organization, Research Square.
Reviewers with declared or apparent competing interests are not utilized for
these reviews. This reviewer has agreed to publication of their comments online
under a Creative Commons Attribution License attributed to Research Square
and was paid a small honorarium for completing the review within a specified
timeframe. Honoraria for reviews such as this are paid regardless of the reviewer
recommendation.
Reviewer Publication Consent.
 I agree for my report to be made available
under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
) if this manuscript is accepted for
publication. Any comments that I do not wish to be included in the published
report have been included as confidential comments to the editor, which will not
be published.
If you are not happy for us to publish this report, please contact the editorial
office before completing the review.
If you wish, you can include your name in your published report. Please note
you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the process and
confirm this decision whenever prompted. If you change your decision later, we
will not be able to publish your name.
I agree to the terms of the CC-BY 4.0 license; please 
do not
 publish my name
with my report. (default)
Is the study design appropriate to answer the research question (including the use
of appropriate controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence
presented?
No
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?
No
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?
No
Is the presentation of the work clear?
No
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gels and blots) free
from apparent manipulation?
Yes