Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Regarding Staphylococcus pettenkoferi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present their data with a well-organized figure which, for the most part, is both visually appealing and clear. I think this paper can be Accepted after minor revision.

I noticed several grammatical errors throughout the manuscript, please correct them. 

Also, a separate section for future directions in this field is required.

Author Response

First of all, we thank you for your review.
1. We studied the text again and corrected the grammatical errors.
2. In the section 4 ,,Detection of a true bacteraemia: standards, guidelines, and best practices,, we have indicated the Centers for Disease Control’s criteria, the third international consensus definitions of sepsis and other best practices that should be used for the diagnosis of bacteraemia and for the interpretation of the microbiological test results. This recommendations are helpful in establishing a true bacteremia and making further decisions about patient care. It seems to us that these recommendations may act as directions  (requested in review). 
Thank you very much for your effort.

Reviewer 2 Report

The review is well writen, more acceptable as a mini-review format.

The length of the article is very short to consider as a review.

Secondly the figure1 should be replaced by author’s own image or author should inteoduce another  image if the author wants to keep this image as well. 

Author Response

I would like to thank you very much for your work and effort to review our work. Regarding Figure 1, it was made by us, not copied from another work or from another author. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations for your review work. It looks good after minor changes. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.