Review for 10.1186/s12876-020-01449-y (2020)

Reviewer ’s report  
 
Title: Protruded duodenal tumor arising from Santorini ’s duct of the pancreas: a rare ca se of 
intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm mimicking a duodenal polypoid tumor.  
 
Version: 1 Date: 11 Aug 2020  
 
Reviewer's report:  
 
 This manuscript has become more scientific and easily understa ndable after revision. 
However, this manuscript still has some problems to be corrected. My suggestion is below:  
 
1.There are mixed use of Santorini's duct and SD in this manuscr ipt. The authors should use the 
word "Santorini duct" at first appearance only and SD thereafter.  
2.In page 4, the word "IPNA" is incorrect.  
 
Publons Reviewer Recognition . Springer Nature can send verifica tion 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” optio n 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 upon publication of the manuscript.  If you have already registered 
at Publo ns, 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 rece ive an email from 
them asking you to register in order for them to be able to recogni ze your review on your new 
profile page. Publons may use the Review Data to generate derivat ive metadata for the benefit of 
Publons and you as a reviewer, carefully considering the sensi tivity of such information. For 
example, Publons may verify your record as a reviewer by updatin g your profile published on its 
webservice if you have registered for such service or help editors t o identify candidate reviewers. 
Please find the details of processing in Publons ’ privacy policy https://publons.com/about/terms  
 
Yes 
 
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, f ees, funding, or salary 
from an organ isation that may in any way gain or lose financial ly from the 
publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?  
 
2.  Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation t hat may in an y way gain or 
lose financially from the publication of this manu script, 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 pa tents 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.  
 
I declare that I have no competing interests  
 
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 edi torial office 
before completing the review.  If you wish, you can include your name in your publish ed report. 
Please note you must decide whether to include your name at the start of the p rocess 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 (i ncluding the use of appropriate 
controls), and are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented?  
 
Yes 
 
Are the methods sufficiently described to allow the study to be repeated?  
 
Yes 
 
Is the use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties appropriate?  
 
No 
 
Is the presentation of the work clear?  
 
Yes 
 
Are the images in this manuscript (including electrophoretic gel s and blots) free from apparent 
manipulation?  
 
Yes