Radiation and Diabetic Retinopathy: A Dark Synergy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This review article by Tom A. Gardiner is comprehensive and meticulously written. The background and the aim for writing a review article discussing the compound insult inflicted on the retinal vasculature (retinopathy) due to diabetes and/or ionizing radiation (IR) alone or in combination are clear.
This review summarizes the molecular mechanisms common to both diabetic retinopathy (DR) and radiation retinopathy (RR), and how they converge to exacerbate or accelerate the retinal disease.
The reviewer has the following comments:
- Inserting any references in the abstract is usually not a common practice. Authors should find a way to remove them from the abstract.
- A table comparing the differences/similarities in the retinal vasculature (or clinical manifestation) due to ionizing radiation and diabetes-induced DR, alone or in combination could improve the reader's quick digest of the topic.
- A paragraph on the prospect or clinical improvement on the topic discussed could be an additional add to improve the quality of the manuscript.
- Few English editing is required.
Author Response
See attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Really nice review, very comprehensive and discusses pivotal work that has funneled together to elucidate mechanisms for the synergistic effect of radiation retinopathy on a background of diabetic retinopathy.
Only 2 comments:
1. Perhaps the organization of the review can be improved. It is a (nice) flow of start to finish of various concepts but it would be easier for the reader to have some major units that have subunits in them as opposed to 29 free-flowing topics with more organization between them that can easily be referenced.
2. A few minor spell-checking errors to be fixed.
Author Response
See attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is well-written, and the topic is relevant and interesting to the readers. The majority of the published materials on radiation and diabetic retinopathy are included in the review. I have a few reservations about how the published research is presented.
1)The majority of the citations are more than 5 years old (only 58 out of 328 are published within 5 years). When writing a review, we must present the published research in a concise manner, with 50% of the citations being published within the last five years.
2) Include a table of abbreviations.
3) Include a graphical abstract summarizing your review.
Author Response
See attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The Authors have addressed all my concerns.
