PREreview of The Transcription Factor Bach2 Negatively Regulates Natural Killer Cell Maturation and Function

Review Comment 11/07/2022

The decision is: ACCEPTED after major revision

Reviewer #1: I read carefully the manuscript entitle "The Transcription Factor Bach2 Negatively Regulates Natural Killer Cell Maturation and Function" needs major revision before publishing. This research aims to create a space to generate dialogue important in shaping and responding to questions about the drive in assessing the role of Bach2, a transcription repressor, in the process of maturation and functional state of NK cells. The manuscript offers a very interesting and important theme, for global agenda. The abstracts of the papers however, vary in the level of detail they each provide regarding their focus, methods and aims.

· The abstract is not a true representative of the content and contributions of the paper. The abstract does not seem to properly convey the rigor of research. However, Abstract should lay out five key points:

Rationale (1-2 sentences) - why was the research needed?

Objective (1 sentence)- what were you trying to provide to meet that need?

Method(s) (up to 3 sentences) - briefly summarize what and which parameters were measured.

Results (up to 4-5 sentences)- what did you find? Please add some data to demonstrate the findings.

Conclusions/Recommendations (1 sentence) - so what should be done with or in response to your findings?

o Keywords are absents.

o It is better to explain more about the novelty of manuscript in introduction section. Please explain about its novelty. Thus, the introduction section need to be improved, it needs significant amount of reorganization. It could be strengthened by adding more recent references. The authors should mention the relevant and recent related studies to give information to readers about the current knowledge.

o The language can be substantially improved for clarity, concision, better grammar and logic. Thus, the manuscript needs to be properly formatted and resubmitted?

o The purpose or purported significance of the article is not explicitly stated. The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work, the similarities and the differences of this work with their previous publications.

o The research contributions of the paper should be articulated more clearly.

o You have a lot of hanging statement in your work.

o The justification of the study is missing. Justification for using a specific methodology or instrument will make it more understandable. Adding more details in this section can give more clarity to the readers.

o Authors should use transitional words mindfully to highlight clear and thoughtful connections among ideas.

o Author research study methods need to be improved. Kindly focus on three basic elements of the methods section.

a. How the study was designed?

b. How the study was carried out?

c. How the data were analyzed?

o Also, authors materials and methods should come under Results

o The result section needs to be written clearly for better understanding. More explanation about details of result is needed.

o Make sure that all the tables and figures are quoted in the text and in correct order with proper labelling, too.

o Discussion section is in line.

o Make sure that all the tables and figures are quoted in the text and in correct order, too.

o Use your data analysis to expand reader understanding why each of these variables matter and its implication.

o Conclusion is absent.

o Add the specific value, problems and challenges of the findings in the conclusion.

o Add 2-3 lines about future recommendation or implications of research in last portion.

o Each citation and reference need careful checking for accuracy of comment in the text. This is a very important and basic point in writing scientific papers; if the paper does not say what the authors are saying then it MUST NOT be cited in the text.

o There is enough new content in this paper to distinguish it from other works.

o The submission provides enough new material for journal publication. This suggestion would strengthen the study further and when addressed will improve the manuscript.

Best regards.