Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript.

Well-written outline of issues arising from “Fighting tuberculosis: in search of a BCG replacement”.

I have read through the paper with interest with some issues to be addressed by the authors. I agree that this is an important area of study that is lacking in quality evidence. I wanted to comment on a few perceived limitations of the study that you would hopefully consider addressing. Some suggestions might be addressed with an appropriate edition of the manuscript and if authors do correct proofreading.

 

I would rather suggest choosing the correct framework for your article. It might be summarized logically by following the typical format of IMRAD — introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Try to rearrange the order of these sections of the paper, and in a longer abstract (actually, just 103 words).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Thank you very much for your revision.

Point 1. Some suggestions might be addressed with an appropriate edition of the manuscript and if authors do correct proofreading.

Response 1. We did correct proofreading as you have advised.

Point 2. I would rather suggest choosing the correct framework for your article. It might be summarized logically by following the typical format of IMRAD — introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Try to rearrange the order of these sections of the paper, and in a longer abstract (actually, just 103 words).

Response 2. We also expanded the abstract. And we made some rearrangements in the structure of the article following your recommendations.

Reviewer 2 Report

The present article "Fighting tuberculosis: in search of a BCG replacement" is an interesting article and author have tried to cover the latest aspect of tuberculosis management.  

However article needs  extensive revision in  language  to improve the quality of article. I am mentioning herewith some points. 

-Write the bacterial name in italic,

-check line no-9,19,144 etc.

-Heading of section-3 is not looking appropriate

section -5 immune response to it?

-reframe and check the sentence  149-150

Check the sentence "The loss of BCG virulence is due to the loss of several regions of difference"

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you very much for your revision.

Point 1. The article needs extensive revision in  language  to improve the quality of article. I am mentioning here with some points. 

-Write the bacterial name in italic,

-check line no-9,19,144 etc.

-Heading of section-3 is not looking appropriate

section -5 immune response to it?

-reframe and check the sentence  149-150

Check the sentence "The loss of BCG virulence is due to the loss of several regions of difference"

Response 1. We followed all your recommendations and made a revision to improve the language as well.