Ferroptosis: An Emerging Target for Bladder Cancer Therapy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review article “The Mechanism and Role of Ferroptosis in Bladder Cancer” submitted by Shan et al. discusses various aspects of Ferroptosis in general and briefly touches upon pathways involved in ferroptosis.

I have the following comments on the review article:

1.     My first and most significant comment is on the content of the review, as it is very broad and non-focused. It starts by defining ferroptosis, lipid peroxidation, etc. After reading half of the paper, I found the title The role of ferroptosis in Bladder cancer; however, even in that section, it is still very generic and not specific to bladder cancer. Some of the titles of the paragraphs are very generic, e.g., 3.1 RNAs, 3.2 Genes, and then 3.3 was missing.

2.     Another out-of-context text was about nanoparticles since the review title is the mechanism and role of ferroptosis.

3.     In some places, the selection of sentences/words was not impressive, e.g., An amount of RNA showed a close relationship with the process related to ferroptosis of various malignant tumors (Line 213 page).

4.     There are multiple typo mistakes, e.g., siderosis (line 155) and iron ptosis (lines 158 and 159).

5.     Overall content in the currently submitted manuscript does not justify the title of the manuscript.

6.     Page 2, line 47 states Material and Methods; I am unsure if this is a relevant section title for the current manuscript type.

In many places, the selection of words is not as per standard English, and there are many typo errors (some of these are highlighted in my comments)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Bladder cancer represents one of the main concerns in the urologic field.

The present study has major issues.

1. First of all, it is unclear what type of study it is. It is a narrative or systematic review?

2. The aim of the study is not clearly presented in the Introduction section.

3. The Material and Methods sections should include the selection criteria, the selection period, including criteria, researched database, etc...

4. Please include a Strength and Limitation section.

5. The Conclusion section should be more concise.

The English spelling is fine.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have tried to address most of the questions and concerns I raised earlier. They have appropriately revised the title and rectified the specific errors I pointed out. While I believe the content could benefit from a more focused approach (focused on ferroptosis in bladder cancer), the current version is significantly improved compared to the previous submission. I have no additional comments at this time.

None

Author Response

Thanks for your advice. We have further revised the language of the manuscript, and the revised parts are marked in red.

Reviewer 2 Report

You should include in the Materials and Methods section the complete description of the research. The time period selected, the database searched, the keyword followed.

Author Response

We apologize for this problem with the typesetting of our manuscript. The manuscript is a narrative review. Therefore, this part should be Mechanism of Ferroptosis. We have revised it and marked it in red.