The Pre-Analytical CEN/TS Standard for Microbiome Diagnostics—How Can Research and Development Benefit?
, Vanessa Stadlbauer 2,3, Dominic O’Neil 4, André Gessner 5, Andreas Hiergeist 5, Kurt Zatloukal 1 and Peter M. Abuja 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Very well-written manuscript. Please check the typographical and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive and friendly review. We went through the manuscript to correct remaining errors.
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to underline that the article entitled: “The Pre-analytical CEN/TS Standard for Microbiome Diagnostics – How Can Research and Development Benefit?“ is useful and interesting especially for people, working in the microbiome studies area.
To improve the clarity of the text I have several minor remarks about the article that are presented below regarding the chapters. In general, all text should be checked once again to avoid additional spaces.
The presented Tables 2 and -3 should be better described. In the case of the second page of the Table, you should add the line with part of the Table with the header and the Table’s number with the description “Continued” or “Cont”.
Abstract
The bold type should be removed from line 20.
Introduction
- The IVD abbreviation should be explained for the first time in the 48 line, such as “ Therefore, the EU In-vitro Diagnostics (IVD) Regulation (IVDR) 2017/746 ...” and then this explanation should be replaced this abbreviation in line 205.
Chapter 3
- in line 135 please remove extra space,
- there is a lack of consistency in writing the word “Table”: in the text of the article: once by using a big letter another one with a small letter (lines: 147, vs 210 or 234). It should be written in a big type letter.
- in line 158 remove the remaining sign or complete information: (),
- after line 226 add an additional line to separate the Tabel 2 from the text above,
- delete 248 and 249 lines
Conclusions
- line 286 delete the abbreviation R&D,
- line 282, this chapter should be entitled Conclusions, not Conclusion.
References
Line 317 please to finish on line address,
Line 372 should be formatted correctly.
Author Response
We would like to thank this reviewer for the careful examination of the manuscript which greatly facilitated revision. Below we give a point per point reply:
We checked the paper throughout for typographical and other errors.
We gave a better, but succinct explanation to the tables, since much of it is explained in the text. Since we do not know how the tables will look after typesetting, we used a full page for each, instead labelling a table break which might disappear in the final typeset paper.
Abstract
The bold type should be removed from line 20.
*** Done
Introduction
- The IVD abbreviation should be explained for the first time in the 48 line, such as “ Therefore, the EU In-vitro Diagnostics (IVD) Regulation (IVDR) 2017/746 ...” and then this explanation should be replaced this abbreviation in line 205.
*** Done
Chapter 3
- in line 135 please remove extra space,
- there is a lack of consistency in writing the word “Table”: in the text of the article: once by using a big letter another one with a small letter (lines: 147, vs 210 or 234). It should be written in a big type letter.
- in line 158 remove the remaining sign or complete information: (),
- after line 226 add an additional line to separate the Tabel 2 from the text above,
- delete 248 and 249 lines
*** all done
Conclusions
- line 286 delete the abbreviation R&D,
*** for consistency we left the abbreviation but removed the non-abbreviated term
- line 282, this chapter should be entitled Conclusions, not Conclusion.
*** done
References
Line 317 please to finish on line address,
*** done, also for ref. 13
Line 372 should be formatted correctly.
*** done
