Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(3)
This version, the author promises, "will be updated as mistakes are discovered and new information comes to light".
The following changes were made to this version: The author list and affiliations were updated.
The straightforward interpretation of QR is changed in Q'R, the version the author describes as being scaled between 0 and 1, only to report negative values later on in the paper (Fig. 2).
Similar(57)
In fact this appears to be the version the authors of [25] actually use in their applications.
In the revised version the authors have extensively revised their presentation.
[Editors' note: further revisions were requested prior to acceptance, as described below.] In the revised version, the authors have successfully addressed most of the comments.
In the current version, the authors write that they cut off the data at 3.2 A because of merging statistics (text, Table 1).
In the revised version, the authors have attempted to address this point by comparing the de novo predicted motifs against databases of known motifs: JASPAR and UniProbe.
In the case of the Macedonian version, the authors decided to eliminate the item because most respondents did not understand its meaning [ 29].
It also would be curious to reproduce this procedure with bacteriophage genomes (very strangely, in the current version, the authors do not specify which page genomes they used).
The manuscript has been improved but there are some remaining issues that need to be addressed before acceptance, as outlined below: In the revised version, the authors have successfully addressed most of the comments.
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