What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
This is my second review of the same paper. I am pleased to see that the necessary changes are completed.
Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
please see the previous revision
Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
please see the previous revision
Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
please see the previous revision
If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
please see the previous revision
Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
please see the previous revision
Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
NA
Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
NA
Other Comments:
None
Competing interests: None
Invited by the author to review this article? : No
Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?: No
References:
None
Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
Angiogenesis and cancer research
How to cite: Guzey M .Tumor Oxygen-Induced Radiosensitization-PRHC for Synchronized Radiotherapy.[Review of the article 'How could a Basic Knowledge of Vascular Physiology Provide a New Tool for Tumor Oxygen-induced Radiosensitization- Postocclusive Reactive Hyperemia Concept for Synchronized Radiotherapy ' by Reyal J].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002377
This is my second review of the same paper. I am pleased to see that the necessary changes are completed.
please see the previous revision
please see the previous revision
please see the previous revision
please see the previous revision
please see the previous revision
NA
NA
None
None
No
No
None
Angiogenesis and cancer research