Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The latest  version of the article can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we have entered the current version of the manuscript into the system.

Reviewer 2 Report

There are still several severe deficiencies in the paper that the authors have not improved yet, even if they claimed they did.

1. The abstract remains the same and poor. Authors ought to reveal the importance and the contribution of their research in order to attract their audience.
2. Use at least 30 references in your literature review and comment on these.
3. The normality of authors’ data has not been checked yet. For instance, a Shapiro–Wilk test or Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests will be helpful. The n=3 does not mean anything.
4. If α significance is 0.05 then write the p with 2 decimals and in case of less than .01 use p<0.01. Do not put so many decimals for p.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we send a reply to you comments in the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After the last revision, the paper could be published.