Imaging of the pial arterial vasculature of the human brain in vivo using high-resolution 7T time-of-flight angiography
Peer review process
This article was accepted for publication as part of eLife's original publishing model.
History
- Version of Record published
- Accepted Manuscript published
- Accepted
- Received
- Preprint posted
Decision letter
-
Saad JbabdiReviewing Editor; University of Oxford, United Kingdom
-
Chris I BakerSenior Editor; National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, United States
Our editorial process produces two outputs: i) public reviews designed to be posted alongside the preprint for the benefit of readers; ii) feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions, shown below. We also include an acceptance summary that explains what the editors found interesting or important about the work.
Decision letter after peer review:
Thank you for submitting your article "Imaging of the pial arterial vasculature of the human brain in vivo using high-resolution 7T time-of-flight angiography" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by 2 peer reviewers, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Reviewing Editor and Chris Baker as the Senior Editor. The reviewers have opted to remain anonymous.
The reviewers have discussed their reviews with one another, and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this to help you prepare a revised submission.
Essential revisions:
In addition to commenting on the other points raised, please pay special attention to the below essential revisions:
1 – More quantitative analyses.
2 – Introduce TOF-MRA for the benefit of the broader eLife readership.
3 – Consider the effect of noise in some of the analyses.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71186.sa1Author response
Essential revisions:
In addition to commenting on the other points raised, please pay special attention to the below essential revisions:
1 – More quantitative analyses.
2 – Introduce TOF-MRA for the benefit of the broader eLife readership.
3 – Consider the effect of noise in some of the analyses.
We would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable and engaging comments. We have addressed all the points raised and revised the manuscript accordingly.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71186.sa2