Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 23, 2021

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewer #2-get cut off value.xlsx
Decision Letter - Gopal Krishna Dhali, Editor

PONE-D-21-33951Platelet count/spleen volume ratio has a good predictive value for esophageal varices in patients with hepatitis B liver cirrhosisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yu,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 24 2021 11:59PM. 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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gopal Krishna Dhali, MBBS, MD, DM

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. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Kindly correct the numerical error on page 9, line 166 and page 12, line 229.

[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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: Well conceptualized study. Thanks to the authors for picking up this particular issue for their investigation. Statistical analyses were performed adequately as was suggested. Manuscript contains all the data related to the study observations. Authors complied with the suggestions provided in the previous review of the manuscript (ID: PONE-D-21-30287). I would request authors to continue this study with the compensated cirrhosis only.

Reviewer #2: 1. Well thought concept.

2. English grammar can be improved for the entire article.

3. Following correction to be made.

(See line 158, page 9): Mean age and range/IQR is reported. It should be median and range/IQR.

**********

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: Yes: KAUSIK DAS, Dept of Hepatology, IPGME&R, Kolkata, India

Reviewer #2: Yes: Debashis Misra

[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 and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter dated November 10. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in Journal, subject to minor revision. We thank the editors and reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Accordingly, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all the changes highlighted in MS Word. Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red). We would like also to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.

We hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in the Journal of PLOS ONE.

The modified parts are marked in red in the copy paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the academic editor and reviewers’ comments are as following:

Responds to the academic editor’s comments:

Since this is a retrospective study and the methods are written in detail in the Materials and methods and Statistical analysis sections, there is no need to store it in protocols.io.

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

We have carefully read the documents PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf for PLOS ONE's style requirements, file naming requirements and made changes accordingly.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

We reviewed the references again to ensure that they were complete and correct.

Additional Editor Comments:

Kindly correct the numerical error on page 9, line 166 and page 12, line 229.

We have corrected 57% to 67% (page 9, line 162 and page 21, line 276). We are very sorry for the trouble we have caused you.

Thank you very much for your dedication!

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer #1: Well conceptualized study. Thanks to the authors for picking up this particular issue for their investigation. Statistical analyses were performed adequately as was suggested. Manuscript contains all the data related to the study observations. Authors complied with the suggestions provided in the previous review of the manuscript (ID: PONE-D-21-30287). I would request authors to continue this study with the compensated cirrhosis only.

Response to comment: Thank you for your compliments and we will continue to look for more meaningful inspiration. We will consider the next study in a population with compensated cirrhosis. Thank you very much again for your advice!

Reviewer #2: 1. Well thought concept.

Response to comment: Thank you for your praise and we will continue to work on more creative attempts.

2. English grammar can be improved for the entire article.

Response to comment: Our manuscript has been corrected in English grammar by 3 people since the beginning, but it still doesn't work very well, if possible, can you tell us where the problem is very big? Thank you very much for your advice.

3. Following correction to be made.

(See line 158, page 9): Mean age and range/IQR is reported. It should be median and range/IQR.

Response to comment: We are very sorry for our repeated mistakes and have corrected the phrase. (See line 154, page 9)

Thank you very much for your comments, we will work harder to learn English to make the language more vivid.

We sincerely thank the editors and reviewers for their enthusiastic work and hope that the corrections will be accepted.

Again, thank you so much for your comments and suggestions!

Best regards

Sincerely yours

Sihao Yu

(On behalf of co-authors)

Detailed address

Tel: (+86)15997812001 Email: 1034137401@qq.com

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx
Decision Letter - Gopal Krishna Dhali, Editor

Platelet count/spleen volume ratio has a good predictive value for esophageal varices in patients with hepatitis B liver cirrhosis

PONE-D-21-33951R1

Dear Dr. Yu,

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,

Gopal Krishna Dhali, MBBS, MD, DM

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Gopal Krishna Dhali, Editor

PONE-D-21-33951R1

Platelet count/spleen volume ratio has a good predictive value for esophageal varices in patients with hepatitis B liver cirrhosis

Dear Dr. Yu:

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. Gopal Krishna Dhali

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 .