Next Article in Journal
Limnospira indica PCC8005 and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG Mixed Dietary Combination Reduces Pelvic Irradiation-Induced Symptoms in Mice
Next Article in Special Issue
The Probiotic Streptococcus salivarius M18 Increases Plasma Nitrite but Does Not Alter Blood Pressure: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Identification of Blastocystis hominis Isolates in Patients with Autoimmune Diseases
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

The Role of an Altered Gut Microbiome in Parkinson’s Disease: A Narrative Review

Appl. Microbiol. 2023, 3(2), 429-447; https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol3020030
by Sara Hashish 1 and Mohamed Salama 1,2,3,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Appl. Microbiol. 2023, 3(2), 429-447; https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol3020030
Submission received: 10 March 2023 / Revised: 20 April 2023 / Accepted: 21 April 2023 / Published: 10 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human Microbiota Influence on Human Health Status 2.0)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

 

In their manuscript entitled” The Role of an Altered Gut Microbiome in Parkinson’s Disease: A narrative review” Hashish et al. reported the role of microbiote in Parkinson’s disease, describing the different published studies.  

I find the manuscript to be well written and well organized.

Author Response

We would like to thank respected reviewers for their constructive feedback and comments

Reviewer 2 Report

There are multiple declarative conclusions in the article without the identification of references, please supplement the quotation.

There are too many references in the article, when citing those articles, only the conclusions of the article are expressed. The statement was too simple, lacking of explanation for these conclusions. It was suggested to deleting some citations and choosing more representative ones.

Too many citations were piled up, however, the author did not summarize and discuss these documents, lacking of the author's own thoughts.

The article did not indicate the number of lines, which had caused difficulties in reviewing the manuscript.

Part 4.3: Please explain the meaning of the MMSE and MoCA scores.

Author Response

We would like to thank respected reviewers for their constructive feedback and comments

 

Reviewer #2

There are multiple declarative conclusions in the article without the identification of references, please supplement the quotation.

All un-supplemented quotations were referenced. Additionally, the reference style was edited.

There are too many references in the article, when citing those articles, only the conclusions of the article are expressed. The statement was too simple, lacking of explanation for these conclusions. It was suggested to deleting some citations and choosing more representative ones.

Too many citations were piled up, however, the author did not summarize and discuss these documents, lacking of the author's own thoughts.

References were revisited to ensure their relevance to the topic and the author’s own thoughts were added when relevant.

The article did not indicate the number of lines, which had caused difficulties in reviewing the manuscript.

Done

Part 4.3: Please explain the meaning of the MMSE and MoCA scores.

Done

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

 

I've read with really great interest your manuscript titled: "The Role of an Altered Gut Microbiome in Parkinson's Disease: A narrative review". It was exciting since it is my main research area. This paper is well-structured and organized and with sufficient information. However, the paragraphs are overly long and can be tiring for the reader. It can be accepted for publication after this minor revision.

 

Kind regards and all the best,

 

The Reviewer

Author Response

We would like to thank respected reviewers for their constructive feedback and comments

 

Reviewer #3

 

The paragraphs are overly long and can be tiring for the reader. It can be accepted for publication after this minor revision.

 

Some paragraphs were split (section 5 and section 6)

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors had addressed my questions and it could be accepted in the present version.

Back to TopTop