Figure 6 presents examples of some of the identified defects found with the technique by the reviewer of interaction modeling.
I think the authors could provide a more informative title, for example, 'Bias in peer review: the interaction between reviewer and author characteristics.' We agree with this suggestion and have revised our title accordingly.
I think the authors could provide a more informative title, for example, 'Bias in peer review: the interaction between reviewer and author characteristics.' Please note, I do not have the expertise to comment on the model and statistical analysis used in this study.
As indicated by the reviewer, the MEG‐PGL interaction will need to be confirmed in vivo, since we do not provide any additional evidence for that interaction.
We agree with the reviewer that specific interaction of Ku and Sir4 is important for the paper.
We agree with the reviewers that the interaction of Hsp104 with heat-induced aggregates is an essential component of our model.
One possible explanation for this is that, as the reviewer stated above, interactions between a kinase and its substrate are mostly not very strong and often not very long lived.
If the aim of this study is to investigate the interaction between reviewer attributes and those of authors, wouldn't averaging the reviewer scores in this way confound this aim?
For instance, Marsh and colleagues' previously cited study of Australian review practices finds no interaction between researcher and reviewer gender.
We agree with the reviewer that protein-protein interaction data could provide more insights into the role of PKC-β in DLBCL.
