Suggestions(1)
Exact(5)
Author response: This point is appreciated and well taken.
Authors' response: This point was originally unclear in the manuscript and has now been modified.
Authors response: This point is often brought up, and a reminder, we hope, will be helpful to the reader.
Author response: This point is very closely related to the first one and their separation might be somewhat arbitrary.
Alternatively, if it really made no difference then why would the author introduce that elaborate step?" Response: This point is now clarified in the article as follows: "Ranking and selection of genes should be based on their P values.
Similar(55)
Please see our detailed response to this point in the response to the first review.
Authors' response: Indeed, this point has been clarified – see the response to Drummond's comments above.
"Even if you were considering a military response at this point, we have no idea where," one official said.
History will provide the final verdict, but there is probably not a wholly right or wrong response at this point.
Well, Baker et al have what I think is meant to be a response to this point in Vox.
He will surely be very adept at his response from this point forward, but it took the initial failure to incentivize such (previously) thankless preventative work.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com