Navigating the Usher Syndrome Genetic Landscape: An Evaluation of the Associations between Specific Genes and Quality Categories of Cochlear Implant Outcomes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article needs to be revised. 1)   Abstract needs to be shortened. 2)   Introduction needs to be reduced too. Line 89-98, Line 103-108, Line 126-130, Line 137-142. Very extensive introduction and discussion makes it difficult to concentrate on the main point of the article. It would be good to point out the specific articles that also try to find a relationship between genotype and outcomes of cochlear implantation. 3)   It is necessary to formulate the purpose of the study and conclusion more clearly. The goal must be removed from materials and methods (line 180-189). 4)   The results do not include an analysis of the patients’ age and level of speech development before surgery; thus the only genetic factor is analyzed. 5)   What does a Successful Genes and Poor Genes mean? The language of a scientific article involves the use of more scientific terms. 6)   The bibliography contains many general references. There are very few articles on the main topic.

English language needs to be checked.

Author Response

We have carefully revised our manuscript based on the helpful comments provided by the peer reviewers, and we had our manuscript thoroughly edited by a professional English language editing service. We hope that our manuscript is now acceptable for publication. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments are applied in the text, please find them enclosed in the file. Also try to put more weight on your results in the discussion. "Discussion" and "Conclusion" presented are more fit for a review article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments are applied in the text, please find them enclosed in the file

Author Response

We have thoroughly revised our manuscript in response to the valuable feedback received from the peer reviewers. Additionally, we have engaged a professional English language editing service to ensure the manuscript meets the highest standards of academic writing. We trust that these comprehensive revisions have significantly improved the manuscript, making it suitable for publication.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The conclusion section remains quite extensive and is a continuation of the discussion. This section should contain specific and key findings, conclusions and should not contain references.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have revised the article following your suggestions. The conclusions have been shortened, made more relevant, and are now free of bibliographic references. The missing part has been added to the end of the discussion section, effectively extending it. We appreciate your valuable contribution. Please find the revised version of the article attached.

Thank you.

Best regards,

the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf