• Reviewer response
• you should response for the every comments that inserted by the editor who corrected the articale and cleafiy what should you do with the every comments, how will fix it and why you did that “you have jastfiy what you did when you fixed the articale”
• Provide as much detail as possible when explaning changes which are being made in the articale.
Whaat text has been removed?
Exactly what text has been added?
Where exactly have changes been made?
• The comments as following:
1.
In the Critique Mini-Review “OASIS family Members and Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress”, the author attempts to explain the role of Endoplasmic Reticulum. The author gives in-depth information on the functions of the ER and the conditions associated with its proper functioning or dysfunction. The writer illustrates the findings of the recent studies in the novel types of Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress transducers. The narrator highlights this in respect to the role they play in the failure of the ER to adapt to the stress, a condition that lead to accumulation of mal-folded/unfolded proteins. The author focuses on the recent identified novel transducers, the OASIS (Old Astrocyte Specifically Induced Substance) and its family proteins. The writer continues to analyse broadly the current findings concerning OASIS proteins and the ER stress. Finally, he concludes the role of OASIS in ER stress according to the current findings.
Response to what the reviewer said above?
2. The paper is divided into clear subheadings that make it easy to follow. The abstract contained a clear statement of what the mini review sought to address. The Introduction clearly highlights the points that were expanded in the body and finally, a clear conclusion was made.
Response to what the reviewer said above?
3. Although the mini review has a clear thesis statement, some key issues need to be addressed prior to publication. The issues that would need addressing are related to the content, the structure and the grammar of the mini review. The structure of the review is appealing; however, the introduction part is too long. The introduction does not indicate clearly the key points that the body will broadly discuss. The mini review contains many abbreviations that are difficult to understand. However, the lack of understanding of the abbreviations could be attributed to my limited scope of knowledge in the field. The review focuses more deeply on some of the OASIS protein family members and barely touches the other family members. There is the need to address all the OASIS family members adequately. I think that it would also be appropriate to indicate the time when the mentioned findings were done. The term recent is vague and lacks the authenticity as required in the scientific field. The abstract fails to explicitly state what the review will entail. It states the topics but does not indicate exactly what will follow for the benefit of the reader. There is a structural issue in the introduction bit. The last sentence in the introductory section should be moved to the abstract section. In the conclusion part, the author fails to express his critical opinions of the review. Although the conclusion part is meant for summarizing what is in the review, it allows room for discussion and for the author to express his opinions about the topic.
Response to what the reviewer said above?
4. The mini-review has many grammatical issues that need to be addressed prior to publishing. There are issues concerning wordiness, the subject noun and verb agreement and punctuation issues. The issues make the review difficult to follow and in some cases distort the contextual meaning of the sentences and phrases. The use of wrong propositions gives the sentence an entirely different meaning that confuses the reader. In section 2, the limitations that are associated with the traditional factors employed to determine prognosis are missing and need to be added. The section P53 need to be elaborated because it does not justify its inclusion in the review if it ascertains that the consistent data is missing. In addition, diagrams that indicates the location of the various receptors and their structure should be added.
Response to what the reviewer said above?
5. “The endoplasmic reticulum also abbreviated as (ER) is known to play the role of maintaining the numerous and different aspects of cellular as well as organism homeostasis by modifying, folding and exporting the transmembrane proteins and nascent secretary” (Add”proteins’ to the end of the first sentence.)
Response to what the reviewer said above?
6. It is odd that oasis family proteins have not been mentioned at all in the introduction
Response to what the reviewer said above?
7. “Such a physiological Endoplasmic Reticulum stress puts on the button for the process of maturation of the cells. With respect to the damages on the Endoplasmic Reticulum stress cells, it has been identified as a major cause of many forms of illnesses.
(Replace ‘puts on the button’ with ‘triggers’) Response to what the reviewer said above?
Here are some examples what should the response
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|
Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]