Can Celecoxib Assay in Preclinical Studies Be Improved?
Jetty Duffy-Matzner
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 96: add the reference.
Line 120-121 what he found ‘The sample preparation was previously optimized”.
Further on, the manuscript still contains some dead links from the reference software, annotations and English errors, thus I highly suggest to proofread the paper.
Line 209: there is no need to repeat the purpose
The name of the statistical interpretation is missing.
There are few references.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewers for their relevant comments, all of which were taken into consideration for improving the manuscript. Corrections and responses are detailed in the following pages, and throughout the manuscript (track changes).
REVIEWER #1
Line 96: add the reference.
R.: The reference was included.
Line 120-121 what he found ‘The sample preparation was previously optimized”.
R.: The text was made clearer and now reads: “Optimal conditions for sample preparation and drug extraction were carried out as described in what follows.”.
Further on, the manuscript still contains some dead links from the reference software, annotations and English errors, thus I highly suggest to proofread the paper.
R.: The “Error! Reference Source not found” links was corrected and the English improved.
Line 209: there is no need to repeat the purpose
R.: The information was removed.
The name of the statistical interpretation is missing.
R.: No statistical analysis was carried out, since according to the purpose of this work it was not deemed necessary.
There are few references.
R.: Some references were added.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have written the manuscript titled “Can celecoxib assay in preclinical studies be improved?” very well. It can be accepted in as such form. Anyhow I have minor suggestions regarding the manuscript
For better understanding of the manuscript it should be suggested that Results & Discussion section should be written separately.
Author Response
REVIEWER #2
The authors have written the manuscript titled “Can celecoxib assay in preclinical studies be improved?” very well. It can be accepted in as such form. Anyhow I have minor suggestions regarding the manuscript
For better understanding of the manuscript it should be suggested that Results & Discussion section should be written separately.
R.: We thank the reviewer comment. However, following the guidelines of the journal, the section “Results and Discussion” was kept combined.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript by Mendes M et al. describes clearly an HPLC procedure for the analysis of Celecoxib in deferent matrices for in vivo pharmacokinetics in mice. The manuscript is very well written, and the laboratory work appears well done. The conclusions are supported by the results of the study. The work will be useful to the scientific audience interested in the analysis of Celecoxib and related compounds in various matrices and it is timely. The only minor change I would suggest is that CXB should be defined at first use, and Figure 1 should be enhanced for the sake of clarity.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewers for their relevant comments, all of which were taken into consideration for improving the manuscript. Corrections and responses are detailed in the following pages, and throughout the manuscript (track changes).
This manuscript by Mendes M et al. describes clearly an HPLC procedure for the analysis of Celecoxib in deferent matrices for in vivo pharmacokinetics in mice. The manuscript is very well written, and the laboratory work appears well done. The conclusions are supported by the results of the study. The work will be useful to the scientific audience interested in the analysis of Celecoxib and related compounds in various matrices and it is timely. The only minor change I would suggest is that CXB should be defined at first use, and Figure 1 should be enhanced for the sake of clarity.
R: We thank the reviewer comment. The information was included and Figure 1 quality improved.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This is an interesting and well written article. There are some errors in the manuscript that need to be addressed.
The statement Error! Reference Source not found. Error! is found several places instead of citing the appropriate figure or table or a citation.
1. Page 2 line 96 should refer to Table 1
2. Page 4 line 121-122 I think this should actually be a citation to a method which is missing - and would need to be cited and potentially added to the reference list.
3. Page 4 line 148-149 once again I think this is a missing citation.
4. Page 6 line 229 not sure what needs to be in the parenthesis. It looks complete as it is.
5. Page 7 line 245-246 and line 251 both refer to Table 3
6. Page 7 line 260 refers to Table 4
7. Page 8 line 277 Table 4 - remove definition for Table and give the table a descriptive statement
8. Page 8 line 281-282 refers to Table 5
9. Page 9 line 306 - refers to Table 6
10. Page 10 line 318-319 and line 338 - This should be Table 7 not Table 1
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewers for their relevant comments, all of which were taken into consideration for improving the manuscript. Corrections and responses are detailed in the following pages, and throughout the manuscript (track changes).
REVIEWER #4
This is an interesting and well written article. There are some errors in the manuscript that need to be addressed.
The statement Error! Reference Source not found. Error! is found several places instead of citing the appropriate figure or table or a citation.
- Page 2 line 96 should refer to Table 1
R.: The text was corrected accordingly.
- Page 4 line 121-122 I think this should actually be a citation to a method which is missing - and would need to be cited and potentially added to the reference list.
R.: The text was corrected accordingly.
- Page 4 line 148-149 once again I think this is a missing citation.
R.: The text corrected accordingly.
- Page 6 line 229 not sure what needs to be in the parenthesis. It looks complete as it is.
R.: The line 229 was replaced by “So, curcumin was considered an appropriate internal standard, and the samples were handled with the required precautions, including light protection and acidic pH values.”.
- Page 7 line 245-246 and line 251 both refer to Table 3
R.: The text corrected accordingly.
- Page 7 line 260 refers to Table 4
R.: The text corrected accordingly.
- Page 8 line 277 Table 4 - remove definition for Table and give the table a descriptive statement
R.: The caption in Table 4 was corrected.
- Page 8 line 281-282 refers to Table 5
R.: The text corrected accordingly.
- Page 9 line 306 - refers to Table 6
R.: The text corrected accordingly.
- Page 10 line 318-319 and line 338 - This should be Table 7 not Table 1
R.: The text corrected accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
