Review Reports

Response to Reviewer X Comments

 Summary

First, thank you and for the valuable time you spent improving the manuscript. The changes you suggested will enhance its scientific value. Please find detailed responses below. Line numbers are provided for the corrected sentences and paragraphs. The corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. Corrections are highlighted in yellow.

Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

The introduction has been revised in accordance with the referee's recommendation.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

In line with the referee's suggestion, the purpose of the research has been revised.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

The methods section has been revised in accordance with the referee's recommendation.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

The result section has been revised in accordance with the referee's recommendation.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

The conclusions section has been revised in accordance with the reviewer's suggestion.

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Must be improved

In accordance with the referees’ instructions, the colours of the figures and the captions for the figures and tables have been revised.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The manuscript is too lengthy, and repetitive content should be removed. Many sections need to be consolidated. The manuscript appears unnecessarily long, and it is the skill of an author to present content concisely while still fully conveying the message. For example:

Response 1: You are right. Thank you for pointing this out. In line with the referee’s suggestion, the manuscript has been shortened in a way that remains true to its purpose and does not compromise its coherence. Repetitive sections have been removed, and some sections have been merged.

Comments 2: Focus on relevant foramina:

The manuscript should focus on the foramina under study. Mentioning unrelated anatomical structures unnecessarily increases the length and overwhelms readers, making the article tedious.

Response 2: The necessary adjustments have been made, and the manuscript has been revised in accordance with the reviewer's recommendation.

Comments 3: Therefore, Figures 1, 2, and 3 should be removed and replaced with 3D Figures 4 and 5, preferably larger and more legible. These figures are sufficient to show both the foramina and measurement regions.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. However, this study focused on determining the morphometric characteristics of the openings of the foramina on CT images. The 3D models were used solely for morphological assessment. A round or cylindrical anatomical structure can be measured accurately in any plane. However, due to the position and shape of the foramina and canals at the base of the skull, it is difficult to perform accurate, reliable and reproducible measurements on the skull skeleton.

Comments 4: Additionally, some labeled structures and their captions in these figures are unnecessary because this is not the first study identifying these foramina—they have been previously described in references 2 and 3 and related literature and imaging books. For example:
AC, Alar canal; CAF, Caudal alar foramen; CC, Condylar canal; CPC, Caudal opening of pterygoid canal; CPF, Crista of the piriform fossa; CS, Carotid sulcus; CTS, Canal of temporal sinus; EF, Ethmoidal foramen; FL, Foramen lacerum; HC, Hypoglossal canal; JF, Jugular foramen; MTC, Musculotubal canal; OC, Optic canal; OF, Oval foramen; ORF, Orbital fissure; PF, Piriform fossa

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. In line with the referee's suggestion and the study's objective, only anatomical structures adjacent to the relevant foramina have been identified in the images (see figures).

Comments 5: Note: Figures 1, 2, and 3 and their captions are repetitive and should be omitted. Additionally, thin colored lines in these figures may confuse readers (e.g., Figure 3, images D and B, and Figure 2, images E and B).

Response 5: You are right. Thank you for your feedback. Following the reviewer's suggestion, the figure captions have been shortened, and necessary guidance has been provided for readers. Explanations regarding thin lines have also been added to the figure descriptions (see lines 199, 213, 223, 352, 360).

Comments 6: “Occipital notches were identified in 15 cases (n = 10 in Group 1; n = 5 in Group 2). True sinus frontalis formation was absent in 12 cases (n = 8 in Group 1; n = 4 in Group 2)"

should be removed. Only mention that the structures were measured in transverse, dorsal, and sagittal planes—detailed directional descriptions are unnecessary.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. In line with the reviewer's recommendation, the relevant sentence has been removed, and the directional descriptions have been revised in the manuscript.

Comments 7: Also, lines 249–252 regarding the foramina are unrelated and should be deleted

Response 7: You're right. The sentence has been removed from the relevant section in accordance with the referee's recommendation.

Comments 8: Figure and table titles should be self-explanatory, including the species name. Left/right orientation and slice location must be indicated, and at least two anatomical directions (rostral, caudal, ventral, dorsal) should be labeled on figures.

Response 8: You are right. Following the referee's suggestion, the figure and table titles have been rearranged, the section location has been indicated, and directions have been added (see lines 199, 213, 223, 261, 352, 360, 366).

Comments 9: 1. Content organization:

Some sections, particularly the Introduction, need better organization and categorization instead of scattered content. Lines 60–64 should be moved after line 102.

Response 9: The introduction has been revised in accordance with the referee's suggestion (see lines 60-112).

Comments 10: 2. Image readability:

Red text in figures with the current font makes reading difficult, even when zooming in.

Response 10: You are right. Thank you for your feedback. The red text color in the figures has been changed in accordance with the referee's suggestion (see lines 198, 212, 222, 351, 359).

Comments 11: 3. Results and Discussion:

Content should be divided into two sections: morphometric measurements and morphology. Morphological descriptions should be concise in one paragraph, and morphometric data for the foramina should be consolidated. Avoid dedicating 20-line paragraphs to each foramen.

Response 11: The conclusion section has been divided into sections as suggested by the reviewer. In the discussion section, the literature information regarding animals is presented in a single flow without being divided into sections, as the information is quite limited. As suggested by the reviewer, the relevant sections have been abbreviated to reflect the purpose of the study (see lines 246-263, 267-348, 371-515).

Comments 12: Title:

Remove the word "radio."

Response 12: The phrase in the title has been removed at the referee's suggestion (see line 2).

Comments 13: Abstract:

Simplify the abstract according to the journal format for ordinary readers.

Replace “CBCT” with “CT” if necessary.

Include three age groups in the Methods section.

Add clinical relevance at the end of the abstract.

Response 13: The simple summary has been revised in accordance with the referee's recommendation. The summary has been simplified, and group findings, abbreviations, and clinical significance have been added (see lines 12-31).

Comments 14: Keywords:

Add "measurements."

Response 14: You are correct. Thank you for your feedback. Following the referee's suggestion, the relevant phrase has been added to the keywords (see line 57).

Comments 15: Terminology:

Replace “Sectional radiology anatomy” with appropriate terms.

Response 15: Following the referee's suggestion, the relevant statement has been revised and added to the keywords (see line 57).

Comments 16: Introduction and Objective:

Delete lines 65–73 and content based on studies in other animals.

Justify why CBCT was used instead of CT and its advantages.

Response 16: Following the referee's suggestion, the content in the introduction that was based on studies involving humans and animals has been removed. Thank you for your feedback. You are right. The necessary statements regarding CBCT have been added to the introduction in accordance with the referee's suggestion (see lines 69-94). References have been added and their numbers rearranged (see lines 583-692).

Comments 17: Methods:

Lines 105–129 are too long. Provide the total number of males and females.

Include the hospital names.

State sample collection dates (from year to year).

Line 104: replace "SUBJECT" with a more appropriate term.

Lines 158–160: provide a diagram or figure.

Lines 160 onward: use “AXIAL section” with correct terminology.

Lines 169–170: clarify group divisions by length, citing sources.

Specify at which slice the foramina dimensions were measured.

Response 17: Following the reviewer's suggestion, the relevant lines have been shortened (see lines 115-133). Hospital names have been added to the acknowledgments section, and a warning for readers is included in the text (see line 116). Sample collection dates are included in the material methods section (see line 125). The specified expression ("SUBJECT") has been removed and replaced with "Animals and CT data sources" (see line 114). A figure related to craniometric measurements has been prepared and added to the supporting files (see supporting files figure S2, line 158). The expression "AXIAL section" has been reorganized throughout the manuscript. Group information has been added to the relevant lines (see lines 166-170). Information regarding foramen dimension measurements has been revised (see lines 181-194).

Comments 18: Results:

Divide into measurements and morphology. Avoid repetition and irrelevant content.

When referring to figures, cite exact figure panels (A, B, C, etc.).

Lines 249–254 should be deleted and incorporated into the text.

Morphological descriptions should be condensed into a concise paragraph at the beginning of the Results.

Measurement findings: summarize statistical significance and correlations for all foramina in a consolidated format; avoid ~140 lines of repetitive description (lines 244–286 and 309–410).

Tables 1 and 2 should follow journal format; captions revised according to journal guidelines.

Response 18: Thank you for your suggestion. The results section has been separated and reorganized as foramen morphology and morphometry (see lines 264-348). When citing figures, only the full panel numbers are given (see lines 183-512). The relevant lines (249-254) have been rearranged (see lines 166-170). Morphological descriptions have been placed at the beginning of the results section and abbreviated as needed. In line with the study's objective, the cross-sectional anatomical structure of the foramina has been explained for use in clinical and radiological applications due to a lack of information in literature (see lines 265-309). Morphometric findings have been combined under a separate heading and abbreviated as needed, in accordance with the referee's suggestion (see lines 313-348). The headings and captions of Tables 1 and 2 have been reorganized (see lines 261, 366).

Comments 19: Discussion:

Lines 420–621 (~200 words excluding limitations) can be significantly shortened without repeating results. Focus on key points and foramina summary.

Use a table to illustrate differences among authors and current findings for clarity.

Add a section linking anatomical findings to clinical interpretation/diagnosis.

Discuss potential differences between CT measurements and dry skull measurements and explain discrepancies. Reference example: Stegmann K, et al., BMC Vet Res. 2026;22(1):114.

Discuss main findings regarding foramina dimensions across short, medium, and long skull types.

Response 19: Thank you for your suggestion. The discussion section has been shortened in accordance with the reviewer's suggestion (see pages 371-515). Tables were not used because the literature on animals is quite limited. This study is a retrospective descriptive anatomy study. Information regarding the use of the findings in clinical diagnosis and other applications has been added to the relevant sections of the study (see lines 25, 50, 99, 107, 538). The literature only contains general morphological findings regarding the foramina of the skull in dogs. Morphometric findings were not available. The previously mentioned literature (Stegmann K, et al., BMC Vet Res. 2026;22(1):114.) only performed morphological examination using a dry skull. This literature does not include any measurements. Therefore, this literature has been removed from the study to avoid confusion. The findings regarding dogs, which were distinguished into three groups in the study, are not repeated here to avoid repetition, as they were evaluated in the relevant paragraphs in the discussion section, as well as in the abstract and conclusions sections.

Comments 20: Limitations:

State the small sample size as a limitation.

Response 20: You are right. Thank you for your warning. The necessary restriction has been added to the relevant section in line with the referee's warning (see line 517).

Comments 21: Conclusion:

Summarize the most important findings concisely, emphasize clinical relevance, and avoid unnecessary general statements.

Response 21: Thank you for your suggestion. In line with the reviewer's recommendation, the findings in the conclusion section have been summarized, clinical significance emphasized, and other statements removed. The section has been revised (see pages 530-550).

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response: Our manuscript was re-edited by the Sci-Edit Publications center

Additional clarifications

The entire manuscript has been reviewed, and any overlooked spelling and grammatical errors have been corrected. New sources have been added, and the references section has been reorganized to conform to the journal format. All figures and descriptions have been revised. Table titles and descriptions have been revised.

Response to Reviewer X Comments

 Summary

First, thank you and for the valuable time you spent improving the manuscript. The changes you suggested will enhance its scientific value. Please find detailed responses below. Line numbers are provided for the corrected sentences and paragraphs. The corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. Corrections are highlighted in yellow.

Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

The introduction has been revised in accordance with the referee's recommendation.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

In line with the referee's suggestion, the purpose of the research has been revised.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

The methods section has been revised in accordance with the referee's recommendation.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

The result section has been revised in accordance with the referee's recommendation.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

The conclusions section has been revised in accordance with the reviewer's suggestion.

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Must be improved

In accordance with the referees’ instructions, the colours of the figures and the captions for the figures and tables have been revised.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The manuscript is too lengthy, and repetitive content should be removed. Many sections need to be consolidated. The manuscript appears unnecessarily long, and it is the skill of an author to present content concisely while still fully conveying the message. For example:

Response 1: You are right. Thank you for pointing this out. In line with the referee’s suggestion, the manuscript has been shortened in a way that remains true to its purpose and does not compromise its coherence. Repetitive sections have been removed, and some sections have been merged.

Comments 2: Focus on relevant foramina:

The manuscript should focus on the foramina under study. Mentioning unrelated anatomical structures unnecessarily increases the length and overwhelms readers, making the article tedious.

Response 2: The necessary adjustments have been made, and the manuscript has been revised in accordance with the reviewer's recommendation.

Comments 3: Therefore, Figures 1, 2, and 3 should be removed and replaced with 3D Figures 4 and 5, preferably larger and more legible. These figures are sufficient to show both the foramina and measurement regions.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. However, this study focused on determining the morphometric characteristics of the openings of the foramina on CT images. The 3D models were used solely for morphological assessment. A round or cylindrical anatomical structure can be measured accurately in any plane. However, due to the position and shape of the foramina and canals at the base of the skull, it is difficult to perform accurate, reliable and reproducible measurements on the skull skeleton.

Comments 4: Additionally, some labeled structures and their captions in these figures are unnecessary because this is not the first study identifying these foramina—they have been previously described in references 2 and 3 and related literature and imaging books. For example:
AC, Alar canal; CAF, Caudal alar foramen; CC, Condylar canal; CPC, Caudal opening of pterygoid canal; CPF, Crista of the piriform fossa; CS, Carotid sulcus; CTS, Canal of temporal sinus; EF, Ethmoidal foramen; FL, Foramen lacerum; HC, Hypoglossal canal; JF, Jugular foramen; MTC, Musculotubal canal; OC, Optic canal; OF, Oval foramen; ORF, Orbital fissure; PF, Piriform fossa

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. In line with the referee's suggestion and the study's objective, only anatomical structures adjacent to the relevant foramina have been identified in the images (see figures).

Comments 5: Note: Figures 1, 2, and 3 and their captions are repetitive and should be omitted. Additionally, thin colored lines in these figures may confuse readers (e.g., Figure 3, images D and B, and Figure 2, images E and B).

Response 5: You are right. Thank you for your feedback. Following the reviewer's suggestion, the figure captions have been shortened, and necessary guidance has been provided for readers. Explanations regarding thin lines have also been added to the figure descriptions (see lines 199, 213, 223, 352, 360).

Comments 6: “Occipital notches were identified in 15 cases (n = 10 in Group 1; n = 5 in Group 2). True sinus frontalis formation was absent in 12 cases (n = 8 in Group 1; n = 4 in Group 2)"

should be removed. Only mention that the structures were measured in transverse, dorsal, and sagittal planes—detailed directional descriptions are unnecessary.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. In line with the reviewer's recommendation, the relevant sentence has been removed, and the directional descriptions have been revised in the manuscript.

Comments 7: Also, lines 249–252 regarding the foramina are unrelated and should be deleted

Response 7: You're right. The sentence has been removed from the relevant section in accordance with the referee's recommendation.

Comments 8: Figure and table titles should be self-explanatory, including the species name. Left/right orientation and slice location must be indicated, and at least two anatomical directions (rostral, caudal, ventral, dorsal) should be labeled on figures.

Response 8: You are right. Following the referee's suggestion, the figure and table titles have been rearranged, the section location has been indicated, and directions have been added (see lines 199, 213, 223, 261, 352, 360, 366).

Comments 9: 1. Content organization:

Some sections, particularly the Introduction, need better organization and categorization instead of scattered content. Lines 60–64 should be moved after line 102.

Response 9: The introduction has been revised in accordance with the referee's suggestion (see lines 60-112).

Comments 10: 2. Image readability:

Red text in figures with the current font makes reading difficult, even when zooming in.

Response 10: You are right. Thank you for your feedback. The red text color in the figures has been changed in accordance with the referee's suggestion (see lines 198, 212, 222, 351, 359).

Comments 11: 3. Results and Discussion:

Content should be divided into two sections: morphometric measurements and morphology. Morphological descriptions should be concise in one paragraph, and morphometric data for the foramina should be consolidated. Avoid dedicating 20-line paragraphs to each foramen.

Response 11: The conclusion section has been divided into sections as suggested by the reviewer. In the discussion section, the literature information regarding animals is presented in a single flow without being divided into sections, as the information is quite limited. As suggested by the reviewer, the relevant sections have been abbreviated to reflect the purpose of the study (see lines 246-263, 267-348, 371-515).

Comments 12: Title:

Remove the word "radio."

Response 12: The phrase in the title has been removed at the referee's suggestion (see line 2).

Comments 13: Abstract:

Simplify the abstract according to the journal format for ordinary readers.

Replace “CBCT” with “CT” if necessary.

Include three age groups in the Methods section.

Add clinical relevance at the end of the abstract.

Response 13: The simple summary has been revised in accordance with the referee's recommendation. The summary has been simplified, and group findings, abbreviations, and clinical significance have been added (see lines 12-31).

Comments 14: Keywords:

Add "measurements."

Response 14: You are correct. Thank you for your feedback. Following the referee's suggestion, the relevant phrase has been added to the keywords (see line 57).

Comments 15: Terminology:

Replace “Sectional radiology anatomy” with appropriate terms.

Response 15: Following the referee's suggestion, the relevant statement has been revised and added to the keywords (see line 57).

Comments 16: Introduction and Objective:

Delete lines 65–73 and content based on studies in other animals.

Justify why CBCT was used instead of CT and its advantages.

Response 16: Following the referee's suggestion, the content in the introduction that was based on studies involving humans and animals has been removed. Thank you for your feedback. You are right. The necessary statements regarding CBCT have been added to the introduction in accordance with the referee's suggestion (see lines 69-94). References have been added and their numbers rearranged (see lines 583-692).

Comments 17: Methods:

Lines 105–129 are too long. Provide the total number of males and females.

Include the hospital names.

State sample collection dates (from year to year).

Line 104: replace "SUBJECT" with a more appropriate term.

Lines 158–160: provide a diagram or figure.

Lines 160 onward: use “AXIAL section” with correct terminology.

Lines 169–170: clarify group divisions by length, citing sources.

Specify at which slice the foramina dimensions were measured.

Response 17: Following the reviewer's suggestion, the relevant lines have been shortened (see lines 115-133). Hospital names have been added to the acknowledgments section, and a warning for readers is included in the text (see line 116). Sample collection dates are included in the material methods section (see line 125). The specified expression ("SUBJECT") has been removed and replaced with "Animals and CT data sources" (see line 114). A figure related to craniometric measurements has been prepared and added to the supporting files (see supporting files figure S2, line 158). The expression "AXIAL section" has been reorganized throughout the manuscript. Group information has been added to the relevant lines (see lines 166-170). Information regarding foramen dimension measurements has been revised (see lines 181-194).

Comments 18: Results:

Divide into measurements and morphology. Avoid repetition and irrelevant content.

When referring to figures, cite exact figure panels (A, B, C, etc.).

Lines 249–254 should be deleted and incorporated into the text.

Morphological descriptions should be condensed into a concise paragraph at the beginning of the Results.

Measurement findings: summarize statistical significance and correlations for all foramina in a consolidated format; avoid ~140 lines of repetitive description (lines 244–286 and 309–410).

Tables 1 and 2 should follow journal format; captions revised according to journal guidelines.

Response 18: Thank you for your suggestion. The results section has been separated and reorganized as foramen morphology and morphometry (see lines 264-348). When citing figures, only the full panel numbers are given (see lines 183-512). The relevant lines (249-254) have been rearranged (see lines 166-170). Morphological descriptions have been placed at the beginning of the results section and abbreviated as needed. In line with the study's objective, the cross-sectional anatomical structure of the foramina has been explained for use in clinical and radiological applications due to a lack of information in literature (see lines 265-309). Morphometric findings have been combined under a separate heading and abbreviated as needed, in accordance with the referee's suggestion (see lines 313-348). The headings and captions of Tables 1 and 2 have been reorganized (see lines 261, 366).

Comments 19: Discussion:

Lines 420–621 (~200 words excluding limitations) can be significantly shortened without repeating results. Focus on key points and foramina summary.

Use a table to illustrate differences among authors and current findings for clarity.

Add a section linking anatomical findings to clinical interpretation/diagnosis.

Discuss potential differences between CT measurements and dry skull measurements and explain discrepancies. Reference example: Stegmann K, et al., BMC Vet Res. 2026;22(1):114.

Discuss main findings regarding foramina dimensions across short, medium, and long skull types.

Response 19: Thank you for your suggestion. The discussion section has been shortened in accordance with the reviewer's suggestion (see pages 371-515). Tables were not used because the literature on animals is quite limited. This study is a retrospective descriptive anatomy study. Information regarding the use of the findings in clinical diagnosis and other applications has been added to the relevant sections of the study (see lines 25, 50, 99, 107, 538). The literature only contains general morphological findings regarding the foramina of the skull in dogs. Morphometric findings were not available. The previously mentioned literature (Stegmann K, et al., BMC Vet Res. 2026;22(1):114.) only performed morphological examination using a dry skull. This literature does not include any measurements. Therefore, this literature has been removed from the study to avoid confusion. The findings regarding dogs, which were distinguished into three groups in the study, are not repeated here to avoid repetition, as they were evaluated in the relevant paragraphs in the discussion section, as well as in the abstract and conclusions sections.

Comments 20: Limitations:

State the small sample size as a limitation.

Response 20: You are right. Thank you for your warning. The necessary restriction has been added to the relevant section in line with the referee's warning (see line 517).

Comments 21: Conclusion:

Summarize the most important findings concisely, emphasize clinical relevance, and avoid unnecessary general statements.

Response 21: Thank you for your suggestion. In line with the reviewer's recommendation, the findings in the conclusion section have been summarized, clinical significance emphasized, and other statements removed. The section has been revised (see pages 530-550).

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response: Our manuscript was re-edited by the Sci-Edit Publications center

Additional clarifications

The entire manuscript has been reviewed, and any overlooked spelling and grammatical errors have been corrected. New sources have been added, and the references section has been reorganized to conform to the journal format. All figures and descriptions have been revised. Table titles and descriptions have been revised.

Response to Reviewer X Comments

Summary

First, thank you and for the valuable time you spent improving the manuscript. The changes you suggested will enhance its scientific value. Please find detailed responses below. Line numbers are provided for the corrected sentences and paragraphs. The corresponding revisions/corrections are highlighted in the re-submitted files. Corrections are highlighted in yellow.

Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Yes

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Dear Authors,

The manuscript entitled “Radiomorphometric Analysis of Foramina in the Middle Cranial Fossa of Dogs: Cone-Beam CT Study” presents a detailed investigation of the anatomical characteristics and morphometric dimensions of several foramina located within the middle cranial fossa of dogs through which vascular structures and cranial nerves pass. The morphological and morphometric data obtained for the examined foramina represent valuable reference information for anatomists, radiologists, clinicians, and researchers.

In the Introduction, the relevant literature from human medicine related to this topic is summarized, while the limited availability of data in veterinary medicine is highlighted.

A contemporary imaging technique, cone-beam CT, was used for the evaluation and measurement of the examined foramina, and the imaging protocol is described in detail in the Materials and Methods section. This section also includes the classification of dogs based on Neurocranial Length (NL), as well as the statistical methods applied in the study.

In the Results section, the morphometric values of the orbital fissure (ORF), round foramen (RF), oval foramen (OF), and spinous foramen (SF), as well as their anatomical relationships, are presented. The results are clearly shown in tables and supported by figures.

In the Discussion section, the obtained results are compared with available literature data. In the Conclusions section, it was emphasized that precise morphometric data on cranial foramina and canals could be provided by cone-beam CT. It was also noted that, in this study, a Neurocranium Length (NL)-based approach was used instead of the traditional Skull Index (SI), which should be considered when comparing these findings with results from other studies.

Considering the clear and highly detailed presentation of the results, together with the appropriate statistical analysis, this manuscript is considered suitable for publication.

Response 1: Thank you so much for your kind comments.

Comments 2: However, minor revisions are required prior to publication:

1.The affiliation of the last co-author should be completed, as the department to which the author belongs has not been indicated.

2.The reference No. 6 should be corrected, since the authors are currently listed according to their given names rather than their surnames. The reference should be presented as follows:

Novakovic, D.A.; Babovic, S.S.; Krstonosic, B.; Vucinic, N.; Petricevic, S.; Jaksic, G. Morphometric Evaluation of the Superior Orbital Fissure. Int. J. Morphol. 2025, 43, 21–25.

Response 2:

1.       The co-author is a final-year (5th-year—intern) undergraduate student at our faculty. The institution is listed as the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine (see line 8).

1. You are correct. In line with the reviewer’s comments, the literature review has been revised and included in the manuscript (see line 657).

Additional clarifications

The entire manuscript has been reviewed, and any overlooked spelling and grammatical errors have been corrected. New sources have been added, and the references section has been reorganized to conform to the journal format. All figures and descriptions have been revised. Table titles and descriptions have been revised.

Response to Reviewer X Comments

Summary

First, thank you and the valuable time you spent improving the manuscript. The changes you suggested will enhance its scientific value. Please find detailed responses below. Line numbers are provided for the corrected sentences and paragraphs. The corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files. Corrections are highlighted in yellow.

Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Must be improved

In accordance with the referees’ instructions, the colours of the figures and the captions for the figures and tables have been revised.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

his is well executed and well written study. The only question is what is its purpose? What is the practical aspect of this study? Is there any?

Response 1: Thank you so much for your kind comments. The objective has been revised in line with the referee's suggestion. The clinical significance of the study has been added to the abstract, introduction, and conclusion sections (see lines 25, 50, 104, 107, 538)

Comments 2: Apart from that: The Figures 1-3 could be slightly larger and the labelling should be in white not red, the red letters are not visible, what makes the figures not legible and thus not informative, thius should be improved.

Additional clarifications

The entire manuscript has been reviewed, and any overlooked spelling and grammatical errors have been corrected. New sources have been added, and the references section has been reorganized to conform to the journal format. All figures and descriptions have been revised. Table titles and descriptions have been revised.

Response to Reviewer X Comments

 Summary

First, thank you again for the valuable time you spent improving the article. The changes you suggested will enhance the scientific value of the article. You can find detailed responses below. Line numbers are provided for the corrected sentences or paragraphs. In the resubmitted files, the relevant revisions/corrections are highlighted in yellow.

Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

The introduction has been revised in accordance with the referee's recommendation.

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

The manuscript has been revised in accordance with the reviewer's suggestion.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

The methods section has been revised in accordance with the referee's recommendation.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

The result section has been revised in accordance with the referee's recommendation.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

The conclusions section has been revised in accordance with the reviewer's suggestion.

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Can be improved

The figures and paintings have been revised in accordance with the judge's recommendation.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Title

The word “cadaver” should be added to the title.

Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you for your suggestion. The study was not conducted using cadavers. Diagnostic CBCT images of animals were used. Therefore, adding the word "cadaver" to the title is inappropriate. Following the reviewer's warning, the study title has been changed to "Morphometric Analysis of Foramina in the Middle Cranial Fossa of Dogs: A retrospective Cone-Beam CT study" to clarify the content of the study (see lines 2-3).

Comments 2: Simple Summary

The Simple Summary should be rewritten according to the journal guidelines and prepared in a manner understandable to non-specialist readers.

Response 2: The Simple Summary has been revised in accordance with the referee's recommendation (see lines 12-25).

Comments 3: Abstract

• The importance of studying the cranial foramina in dogs should be stated clearly and scientifically.
• In lines 52–54, a conclusion regarding skull length is presented although no corresponding results are reported in this section. The relevant results should be presented first, followed by the conclusion.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. In line with the referee's recommendation, the entire abstract has been reviewed, and the necessary revisions have been made (see lines 28-44).

Comments 4: Introduction

Lines 69–79 are unnecessary and should be removed.

In line 106, CBCT should be used instead of CT, and this correction should be applied throughout the manuscript.

In lines 99–112, the clinical significance of these foramina in canine veterinary medicine should be described more specifically. The manuscript should clearly explain in which diseases, disorders, or clinical conditions these foramina are important and why their morphology and dimensions are clinically relevant.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestions. Following the referee's warning;

Lines 69-79 have been removed from the introduction section (see lines 58-74).

The term CT has been removed from the manuscript except for the Simple Summary section and replaced with the term CBCT.

As stated by the reviewer in the introduction, the specific clinical significance of the study is explained (see lines 87-91).

Comments 5: Materials and Methods

Lines 117–118 should not be italicized.

Please provide the reference used for skull-length classification and explain the basis of this categorization.

Lines 193–194 are unclear and should be revised for better understanding.

In line 203, the explanations related to labels D and E are not sufficiently clear.

It should be clarified whether the images presented are magnified (zoomed-in) sections of other images.

In Figure 2, label D is difficult to interpret. The location of the section should be clearly indicated, preferably by marking the section plane on a skull image placed above the figure.

In all figure legends, CBCT should replace CT. In addition, the figure legends should specify which skull category/group is represented.

In Figure 1 (dorsal view), the location of the section within the skull should be clearly identified.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. In line with the reviewer's recommendations, the necessary adjustments have been made to the materials and methods section, which are explained below.

The italic font style has been removed (see lines 96-97).

In craniometric analyses, the literature numbered [3,19] at the end of the sentence was used. However, the classification of animals into three groups according to NL length was determined by the authors. No different literature was used in this classification. Therefore, no literate information has been added to the manuscript (see lines 140-148)

Following the referee's warning, lines 193-194 have been revised (see lines 172-174).

The figure descriptions indicated on line 203 have been rearranged and the viewpoints of the image and the planes it passes over the skull are shown on the image (see lines 180-183).

Some of the images presented are enlarged cross-sections of the foramina. You are right. Following the referee's suggestion, the necessary explanations have been added to the figure descriptions. Furthermore, the necessary corrections have been made to the images (see lines 177-215).

The necessary explanations and adjustments have been made to panel d in Figure 2 (see lines 194, 197-200).

All figure captions have been corrected to CBCT (see lines 178-215).

Animal group information has been added to the figure descriptions (see lines 179, 196, 209).

Figure 1 shows the perspective by placing an image of a skull in the upper left corner (see line 177).

Comments 6: Results

The text in lines 273–309 and 323–348 largely repeats the information already presented in the tables. These sections should be substantially shortened and replaced with a concise summary highlighting the principal findings. Ideally, this information should be presented in a single paragraph of approximately six lines.

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. According to the referee's recommendation;

The lines 273–309 indicate the results related to cross-sectional morphological information. The information for these lines is not included in the tables. Following the reviewer's suggestion, necessary abbreviations have been made without disregarding the article's objectives. Additionally, the morphometric information in lines 323–348 has been significantly shortened at the reviewer's suggestion (see lines 235-238, 262-281, 296-302).

Comments 7: Discussion

Since the results are presented according to specific categories, the Discussion section should also be organized following the same categorization.

Lines 375–401 still require major revision.

This section is excessively long and contains unnecessary details. The Discussion should be reduced to a maximum of two pages.

There is no need to discuss each foramen individually.

Comparisons with human anatomy should be removed.

Given the substantial anatomical differences between the cranial foramina of dogs and cattle, comparisons regarding the shape and dimensions of these foramina are not scientifically informative. In cattle, several foramina may fuse and form different anatomical structures with distinct nomenclature; therefore, such comparisons are not appropriate.

Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion. Following the referee's recommendation;

The discussion section is organized according to a similar categorization as the conclusion section (see lines 329-369).

Lines 375–401 have been reorganized (see lines 330-347).

The discussion section has been shortened by making necessary corrections. This section has been reduced to 2 pages (see lines 396-414).

Morphological and morphometric information and comparisons of reported foramina in humans have been removed (see 396-414).

Comparisons regarding cattle have been removed (see 396-414).

Comments 8: Abbreviations

Several abbreviations used in the Results section should be included in the Abbreviations list (e.g., the abbreviation used in line 248).

Response 8: You're right. Following the referee's suggestion, the necessary abbreviations and explanations have been added to the Abbreviations section (see line 473).

Comments 9: Conclusion

Since skull length was measured and dogs are conventionally classified as brachycephalic, mesaticephalic, and dolichocephalic, these categories should replace the terms “small-, medium-, and large-breed dogs.”

The Conclusion should be more concise and focused on the principal findings of the study.

Response 9: Thank you for your suggestion. However, instead of the traditional index classification, the study used NL length to divide the dogs into three groups. Therefore, the brachycephalic, mesaticephalic, and dolichocephalic classification method using the skull index was not used in this study. In the present study, these dogs, classified as 1, 2, and 3, were further named as small, medium, and large dogs according to their skull shape.

The Conclusion section has been revised at the suggestion of the referee (see lines 430-441).

Additional clarifications

Except for the reviewer's suggestion, the entire manuscript has been revised, and overlooked spelling errors, excessive labels in figures, and an incorrectly defined opening in Figure 2d (the abbreviation OF has been changed to ORF) have been corrected. In line with the reviewer's suggestion, human literature information has been removed, and all references used in the manuscript have been renumbered. Rostral, caudal, dorsal, and ventral labels have also been added to the other panels in the figures.