Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 15, 2020
Decision Letter - Michael W Greene, Editor
Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PONE-D-20-25326

“Site-specific risk of colorectal neoplasms in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis”

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We apologize for the delay in the review process. Peer review is under unprecedented pressure due the current COVID-19 pandemic. Your manuscript has received a positive review which will require a minor revision. The following minor comments should be addressed in your resubmission:

  1. Line 13: Define OS the first time it is used
  2. Line 39: typo in "adipokines"
  3. Consider mentioning in the background on NAFLD in the introduction that there is discussion that NAFLD may be better named as Metabolic (dysfunction) associated fatty liver disease.  See: https://www.metabolismjournal.com/article/S0026-0495(20)30277-8/fulltext
  4. Line 303: the statement that the specific location of colon tumors in patients with NAFLD was evaluated for the first time is overstated given the current study is a meta-analysis. Rephrase to more accurately reflect the assessment undertaken.
  5. Line 323: typo in "conflicts"

Please submit your revised manuscript by December 7, 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael W Greene, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. At this time, we ask that you please provide the full search strategy and search terms for at least one database used as Supplementary Information.

3. PLOS ONE requires systematic reviews to include a detailed analysis of the quality of each study included in the review. Please attach a Supplemental file of the results of the quality assessment for each individual study assessed, broken down into individual quality assessment measures. Please also discuss how results can be interpreted given the quality of the included studies.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Please include a captions for figure 2 and 3.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting article addressing a clinically relevant issue.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Dear Editors:

On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive

comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “ Site-specific risk of colorectal neoplasms in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis” . (I D: PONE-D-20-25326 ).

We have studied reviewer ’ s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in yellow highlight in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration. The following is our modification plan:

1、The English name of author affiliation has been redefined in recent months, and updated here.

2、Line 13: We defined OS the first time it is used.

3、Line 40: We respelled the word "adipokines".

4、Line 22-23: By referring to the comments of the editor, we introduced the concept of “Metabolic (dysfunction) associated fatty liver disease” into the background of NAFLD in the introduction.

5、Line 298-301: After discussion, we also agree that the term "for the first time" is not appropriate, so we rephrase it to more accurately reflect the assessment undertaken.

6、Line 324-326: dear editors, Maybe you think the content under the tittle “Acknowledgements“ should be credited in the “conflicts” title, but in Line 318-319 we have made “Conflict of interest”, so we decided to delete the part of “Acknowledgements”.

We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Qiao-ling Wang

Corresponding author:

Name: Qiao-ling Wang

E-mail:qiaoling86@126.com

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc
Decision Letter - Michael W Greene, Editor

“Site-specific risk of colorectal neoplasms in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis”

PONE-D-20-25326R1

Dear Dr. Wang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michael W Greene, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Your initial manuscript submission received a favorable review by an external peer reviewer. You have been responsive to the comments from the Academic Editor. Based on these two factors, your revised manuscript has been recommended for acceptance.

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Michael W Greene, Editor

PONE-D-20-25326R1

Site-specific risk of colorectal neoplasms in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dear Dr. Wang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Michael W Greene

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .