Long-Term COVID: Case Report and Methodological Proposals for Return to Work
, Luigi Cirrincione 1,*,†, Fulvio Plescia 1, Marcello Campagna 2, Claudia Montagnini 3 and Emanuele Cannizzaro 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Assessing the outcomes of SarsCov-2 infection…….. “ authored by Malta et al., is need further extensive work form authors. The Article doesn’t organize, several mistakes have been detected as well the tables don’t have the main titles. Authors did not follow the journal guidelines in their articles. No Reference should be included in the abstract.
I recommended that the paper cannot be accepted in this from.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The language of the article was found good. However, it is advised to consider the following corrections as MAJOR COMMENTS.
The article in this form cannot be accepted for publication, however, once the authors have addressed my comments, it can be accepted for publication.
NOW IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE ARTICLE BE FOR MAJOR REVISION.
Title: The title can be modified to an attractive form, if so the authors can get the research paper in an easier form and the dissemination of the article toward the various parts of the world with more citations. It will also enhance the journal's objective toward the scientific community.
Abstract: Why did you cite the reference in the abstract part? Please check and modify the aforesaid thing with the journal instructions, if needed. If possible, please do consider including some of the major threats toward the human population instigated by the infection and how your findings/outputs/suggestions practically contribute to the scientific community or the society. The authors should also have clearly specified how their findings open the way for future research. In addition to this, the authors should also mention the possibility of representing your findings for either a specified area or from an international perspective.
Introduction:
The authors should have provided more recent studies that support the statements for Line. 36-38.
Line. 40-44.
You have the right to introduce your perspective in this part. However, while introducing a particular concept, a strong scientific backbone should be included in recent studies.
Line. 45-55
Enlarge these concepts since it is not a short communication. Please do enhance the introduction part according to the journal instruction. The introduction was found short. Hence, if possible please rectify the same. Do incorporate the major perspectives of recent studies in 2022 from your studied region and also in an international province. The research gaps in this subject should also be incorporated. The authors should consider these notes as MAJOR COMMENTS.
Methodology
Does the study necessitate ethical clearance? If so please do add the ethical information in the methodology part. Why don’t you add a number to the table? It is mandatory to cite the table/table number in the script. Hence it is strictly advised to rectify all the concerns allied with the table in the manuscript. Authors should strictly consider the modifications that are required to modify the methodology part for reader-friendly nature.
Line 254-264
if possible, the data can be illustrated in a figure, if so, the discussed concepts can be easily understood.
The evaluation of outcomes:\
The authors can add the inferences concerning the following questions and clearly specify the uniqueness and novelty of your discussed/analyzed perspectives.
How your findings can influence the public?
How do your findings differ from others?
Discussion:
According to the sentences in 505-508, “With regard to the outcomes taken into consideration for the case examined, the ta-505 bles show significant differences in evaluation, especially with regard to anosmic out-506 comes (Table 1).”
Where is Table 1, What is the Table legend? Include the table legend for each table and do cite the table in the manuscript as well. The authors should have considered this comment for the whole manuscript.
Do add recent studies throughout the manuscript. Studies focusing on the same perspective in 2022 should be included in the discussion part. At the end of the discussion part, the authors can conclude their findings and major suggestions for the scientific community and future research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting manuscript, and will attract more audience working in this field. There are so many tables in the manuscript, but they are not properly cited and explained, which made the manuscript hard to read. Especially, the tables are just listed in the manuscript. They should be numbered in sequential order. Please fix them.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor,
The manuscript entitled “Long Term Covid: case report and methodological proposals for return at work” authored by Malta is now can be accepted after extensive works have been done the authors. I recommended minor revision. Please add the figures titles below the figures not above.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your timely observation of the manuscript.
We have moved the titles and figure captions below them.
Best regards
Geneva Malta
Reviewer 2 Report
The figure legends should be usually placed below the figure level. In this manuscript, it was found that all the figure legends were above the figure. In this regard, please do follow the journal instructions and do make changes if required. In addition to this, about four articles of "Cirrincione Luigi" were cited in the text, most probable it would be considered self-citation. Please reduce the number of the same if possible.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your timely observation of the manuscript.
We have moved the titles and figure captions below them.
We have also reduced Dr Cirrincione's quotations.
Best regards
Geneva Malta
