Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper entitled "Identifying pre-existing ballistic trauma in burnt bone."  The authors explored the impact of thermal damage to already existing ballistic trauma to long bones and if ballistic fractures can still be identified with confidence once the bone has been thermally altered.  This research contributes positively to trauma interpretation of bone and I would like to see it published once a few minor changes have been addressed:

1. Introduction, first paragraph: The authors state that firearm related fatalities have increased slightly of the past few years, but give only statistics related to one year (2022-2023) with only one more case.  Since this is cannot be considered a significant increase, previous years' stats should be added to show an increase, or the statement should be adjusted to state that ballistic fatalities remains third on the list following sharp and blunt force trauma.  A better overview of the past few years' statistics will hopefully strengthen the argument of increasing use of firearms.  
2. Introduction, paragraph 3: Although previous literature has focused more on cranial ballistic trauma, recent literature has contributed much to long bone high-velocity projectile trauma.  I suggest that this paragraph be adjusted to include some of the work done on long bones, such as the work done by Schwab and colleagues.  The reference list includes the Schwab (2024) paper, as well as the Matrille and Symes paper (2019), but the addition of Schwab et al. (2025) "Ballistic long bone fracture pattern: an experimental study" This paper, together with the former papers should included here to strengthen the work done on long bone ballistic trauma.  As the next paragraph of the introduction gives sufficient justification for the study, this paragraph can be reconstructed to focus on long bone ballistic trauma.  
3. Material and methods, section 2.2: Various distances are shown in Appendix 1, Table 1A.  The distances differ between the rib and femoral samples, and although the reasons for this may be obvious, it should be justified here with a bit of detail.  Also, this section states that firing was done to mimic a real-life scenario (shot front to back), it appears as though only the femora was shot in this manner.  The ribs were shot from external to internal surfaces, which may not be front to back.  It is mentioned in the discussion at which angle the ribs were shot, but it should be explained in this section.  Furthermore, the one accidental shooting of the femur from medial to lateral should also be added here.  
4. Incomplete vs Complete fractures (Results and Discussion sections): It appears on the figures that some fractures may have been complete, while others were incomplete. It should be mentioned which fractures were incomplete, and which complete, as this may seriously affect the recognition and interpretation of bone trauma, especially post-burning.  With an increase in fractures caused by thermal damage, one may miss ballistic trauma in burned bone.  The discussion should touch on this and explain that it may complicate analysis.
5. Conclusion: Although trauma remained identifiable on all samples, burnt fractures are slightly less obvious than unburned fractures.  This should be mentioned as a caution to practitioners and researchers analyzing burnt bone.  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article, from the point of view of the objective that the authors have set themselves, has partially achieved its intended purpose.

The topic is extremely interesting (I take this opportunity to congratulate some authors, whom I suspect are young researchers - see refs. 19 and 20), but, unfortunately, in this reviewer's opinion, the following ballistics-related topics are missing:

1) photographs and descriptions of both the weapon used and the 7.62 Mauser ammunitions
2) chronographed bullets velocity
3) bullets type
4) any images of recovered bullets
5) microscopic images (optical or SEM) of the fracture lines on the bones before and after combustion (namely before using superglue)
6) comparison between bullet-induced fractures (which, I remind you, must be well described) and other penetrating objects (sharp tools), in order to exclude false positives in this specific case (bones perforated and subsequently subjected to thermal insult).

The bibliographical discussion of the different modes of trauma induced by:

1) apical morphology of the bullet (spitzer - round nose - hollow point - shotgun, etc.)

2) bullet structure (jacketed vs. unjacketed vs. bare lead)

3) type of weapon (e.g., handgun vs. rifle)

4) other modalities

despite being represented and present in the article, it is fragmented: one would be appropriate a better organised narrative that could provide the reader with real added value.

Regarding the study conducted, it should be underlied that the bone injury is determined by the shock wave preceding the bullet tip, induced by the short distance (3 to 10 meters), by the supersonic velocity of the bullet, and, subsequently, by the metal structure of the bullet.

Finally, the references

19. Essam, K. Comparison of direct and indirect ballistic trauma to porcine femora: A contribution to the interpretation of patterns of skeletal trauma in conflict casualties. MSc thesis, Cranfield University, UK, 2023

20. Ellenberg, I. Analysis of ballistic trauma to ribs in connection with firearms used by the German military during World War II. MSc thesis, Cranfield University, UK, 2023

which form the basis of this study do not appear to be available online.

In summary, although the topic is extremely interesting, and the authors' work has been remarkable in terms of description, I recommend developing the previous observations (all where possible or part) to produce an article of considerable gunshot wound interest.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is highly interesting. The topic is well addressed, and the authors clearly demonstrate the originality of their study as well as its contribution to the field, given the notable gap in the existing literature.
The manuscript is well written and clear. The objectives are properly handled, and the work is well argued. The experimental approach is well described, with a clear presentation of the results.
The discussion is well developed, and the bibliography is extensive and adequately covers the subject.

Below are several questions and/or suggestions for each section:

Introduction:

The connections between paragraphs are lacking, particularly the transition between trauma and fire. A few additional sentences or a reorganization of the paragraphs could be implemented.

p.1, l.38: this point is addressed somewhat too briefly. It may be useful to add one or two sentences about the abundant ballistic literature, noting that it is rich but lacks a focus on post-burning conditions.

Results:

Two different figures are labeled as Figure 1. In both cases, only the separated portion of the bone is shown. For the butterfly fracture, it might be better to present it together with the rest of the bone, or show another bone where no external bevelling is present.
For the post-burn fragment, it may be worthwhile to include a photograph of the pre-burn bone to help illustrate the before/after comparison. The figures should be renumbered (there are two Figure 1), or labeled as 1A and 1B, for example.

Figure 2: It might be helpful to specify the view (e.g., external view, internal view).

In the text, the figure numbers do not match the numbering under the figures. The authors should correct both the numbering and the in-text figure citations.

Figure 3: It may also be useful to indicate the views here.

Figure 5: Consider adding the unburned portion in order to show the difference, as it is difficult to appreciate with only a fragment.
I am not sure that Figure 6 adds additional value, since it does not appear to interact with the ballistic trauma area.

Discussion:

The sentence referring to the type of firearm could be moved to the introduction. This would allow the reader to understand from the outset why this specific weapon was chosen.

Do the authors know the age of the pig? Juvenile or mature? This could potentially influence the results.

 

These comments represent only minor suggestions intended to enhance the fluidity of the manuscript. The study is, overall, highly compelling.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the manuscript text. In my opinion, the information representation, causal connections, discussion, and bibliography have been refined where necessary.