Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 15, 2024
Decision Letter - Priti Chaudhary, Editor

PONE-D-24-33095Application of Micro-computed Tomography in the Microstructure of Cervical Uncinate Processes Trabecular BonePLOS 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.

ACADEMIC EDITOR:Authors are required to reply all the queries, raised by both the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 18 2024 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,

Priti Chaudhary, M.S.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

The authors received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant numbers 81860382); the Program for Young Talents of Science and Technology  in Universities of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region(NJYT22009); the Key Research Projects of Inner Mongolia Medical University (YKD2021ZD011); the Doctoral Scientific Found Project of Inner Mongolia Medical University (YKD2023BSQD014); the Teaching Innovation Team of Inner Mongolia Medical University (NYCXTD202406); the 2024 “Shan Xue” Talent Programme of Inner Mongolia Medical University (ZY20242104).

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. In the online submission form, you indicated that All relevant data generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either a. In a public repository, b. Within the manuscript itself, or c. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 

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.

5. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

[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: No

**********

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: The is a good work but need some revision as follows;

1. Title

This may ned to be modified as Study of distribution and morphological characteristics of the

trabecular bone in the uncinate process of the cervical spine using micro-computed tomography.

2. Abstract

Background is missing. Just provide one or two sentences here.

3. Introduction

No statement of research problems and justification of the study

Why mechanical structure?

3. Methods

Study area need explain briefly.

How long is the bone stay after the maceration? or Any variations regarding the time of collection or maceration methods.

No repeatability test. You need to determine the methods error.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria were not captured.

Line 102, Excel sheets not table.

Why paired test. The left and right side are two independent structure. So the appropriate test is independent sample test.

Why both ANOVA and Kruskal Wallis in the statistical analyses.

What is the different between text value (α=0.05) and P values?.

Line 134 in summary need to be expunge.

Line 156- scholars?

Limitation and recommendations need to be stated at the end of the discussion.

Trim your conclusion according objectives.

Figure 3, SD in the image, the SD is to high. Please check for possible outlier.

A table need to dedicate to define the landmark used.

Best regards

Thank you

Reviewer #2: One glaring issue in the manuscript is poor language. The flow isn't very good and the statements from one section seem to be in another. Some sentences are not clear.

Introduction section isn't structured well, objectives aren't evident.

Results section is not adequate as the descriptive statistics have completely been omitted, and discussion could be structured better too.

Although statistical analysis been performed, the result section doesn't elaborate the output and only states the gist.

The reviewer strongly recommends following STROBE guidelines from EQUATOR website to further align your manuscript. Also, linguistic review seems a must.

Please check the comments in the attached manuscript file.

**********

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: Dr Lawan Hassan Adamu

Reviewer #2: 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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Micro-CT in the uncinate process_reviewer.docx
Revision 1

We are very grateful to your and the reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modification on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are in red in the revised manuscript so that they may be easily identified. Some of your questions were answered below.

Once again, we acknowledge your comments and constructive suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.

Kind regards

Sincerely yours

Xing Wang

Here are our responses to the reviewers’ comments one-by-one.

Reviewer #1:

1.Title

This may ned to be modified as Study of distribution and morphological characteristics of the trabecular bone in the uncinate process of the cervical spine using micro-computed tomography.

-Thank you for the title suggested. The precedent version of the title has been replaced.

2.Abstract

Background is missing. Just provide one or two sentences here.

-Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information suggested by the reviewer.

3.Introduction

3.1No statement of research problems and justification of the study.

-Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information suggested by the reviewer.

3.2Why mechanical structure?

-Bone is a dynamic structure that can respond to mechanical stimuli, and this property is known as its mechanical adaptability. The mechanical environment to which bone is subjected is the variety of mechanical forces it is subjected in the body, including pressure, tension, shear, etc., and the effects of these forces on bone structure and function.

4.Methods

4.1Study area need explain briefly.

-Thank you for the suggestion. We have explained the study area in the manuscript.

4.2How long is the bone stay after the maceration? or Any variations regarding the time of collection or maceration methods.

-The dry bones in the school's anatomical teaching laboratory are usually stored at room temperature in a shady place. According to research by Yang Keqiang and others in the literature, "Study on the Influence Properties of Cortical Bone," storing bones at room temperature does not affect their biomechanical properties.

4.3No repeatability test. You need to determine the methods error.

-In this experiment, we strictly followed the unified equipment standards, performed precise scanning operations on the specimens, and adopted standardized image processing and segmentation algorithms to ensure the reliability of the experimental results. We attached great importance to selecting the region of interest during the experiment to ensure its consistency and accuracy. Also, we provided comprehensive training to the operators to ensure the standardization and consistency of the operation process to minimize methodological errors. In addition, to improve the accuracy of the experimental results further, we performed multiple measurements on the same specimen to reduce the effect of methodological errors.

4.4Inclusion and exclusion criteria were not captured.

-Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information suggested by the reviewer.

4.5Line 102, Excel sheets not table.

-Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information suggested by the reviewer.

4.6Why paired test. The left and right side are two independent structure. So the appropriate test is independent sample test.

-A paired-sample t-test for the cervical spine left and right side parameters is appropriate because this test is suitable for comparing differences in means between the same set of samples in two correlated or paired conditions. In this case, the left and right cervical spine parameters for each sample are correlated, so using a paired-sample t-test provides a more accurate assessment of whether there is a statistically significant difference between the two sides.

4.7Why both ANOVA and Kruskal Wallis in the statistical analyses.

-The ANOVA may only be appropriate if the data satisfy a normal distribution or if the variance of the groups is homogeneous. In such cases, the Kruskal-Wallis test is more appropriate as a non-parametric method that does not require these assumptions.

4.8What is the different between text value (α=0.05) and P values?

-The significance level α is a judgment criterion the researcher sets before the statistical test to decide whether to reject the null hypothesis. At the same time, the P-value is a result calculated based on the actual data to measure the probability that the observed data is consistent with the null hypothesis. If the P-value is less than or equal to α, the result is considered statistically significant, and vice versa.

4.9Line 134 in summary need to be expunge.

-Thank you for your suggestion. We have removed this section.

4.10Line 156- scholars?

-Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised this section suggested by the reviewer.

4.11Limitation and recommendations need to be stated at the end of the discussion.

-Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised this section suggested by the reviewer.

4.12Trim your conclusion according objectives.

-Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised this section suggested by the reviewer.

4.13Figure 3, SD in the image, the SD is to high. Please check for possible outlier.

4.14A table need to dedicate to define the landmark used.

-The presence of extreme values in the dataset can increase the standard deviation, and these extremes may be a true reflection of the data rather than an error. We have added notes to the revised version.

Reviewer #2:

1.One glaring issue in the manuscript is poor language. The flow isn't very good and the statements from one section seem to be in another. Some sentences are not clear.Introduction section isn't structured well, objectives aren't evident. Results section is not adequate as the descriptive statistics have completely been omitted, and discussion could be structured better too. Although statistical analysis been performed, the result section doesn't elaborate the output and only states the gist. The reviewer strongly recommends following STROBE guidelines from EQUATOR website to further align your manuscript. Also, linguistic review seems a must.

-Thank you for your suggestion. We have tried our best to polish the language in the revised manuscript and have revised the section suggested by the reviewer.

2.Please check the comments in the attached manuscript file.

-Thank you for your suggestion. We have checked the comments in the attached manuscript file.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx
Decision Letter - Priti Chaudhary, Editor

Study of distribution and morphological characteristics of the trabecular bone in the uncinate process of the cervical spine using micro-computed tomography

PONE-D-24-33095R1

Dear Dr. Xing 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Priti Chaudhary, M.S.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Priti Chaudhary, Editor

PONE-D-24-33095R1

PLOS ONE

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 being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Priti Chaudhary

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 .