You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
by
  • Xiancheng Xiahou* and
  • Yoshio Harada

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is good. The article addresses a very interesting topic from a narrow point of view.
I consider the paper has a great value, but the value is not properly presented.
The conclusion section needs to be further expanded.
I recommend supplementing with information for a better use of the results.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

   Please see the attachment.

   

Sincerely yours, Best wishes, Best regards.

Xiancheng Xiahou 

kakou.osu@hotmail.com

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has some shortcomings. Firstly, the goal of the paper is missing. Secondly, section “Research Methods” provides in fact no information what research methods have been used by Authors. Thirdly, “Conclusions” sections contains too general information.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

   Please see the attachment.

 

Sincerely yours, Best wishes, Best regards.

Xiancheng  Xiahou

kakou.osu@hotmail.com

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the paper can be published in its current form.