Function Sparing Conservative Approach of a Low-Grade Chondrosarcoma of the Larynx: Case Report and Literature Review

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest?

Comments: Yes, the topic is relevant to the journal area of interest.

Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

Comments: The abstract seems to include all required components such as the background, case report, and conclusion. The document does not list specific keywords.

Goal

Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

The Introduction provides a background on chondrosarcomas, their frequency, and historical context. While the goal is not explicitly labelled as such, the Introduction implies that the paper aims to present a rare case of laryngeal chondrosarcoma treated conservatively.

Structure

Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

Comments: The structure appears coherent, moving logically from Introduction to Case Report, then to Discussion, and finally to Conclusion, aligning with the goal of presenting a conservative approach to a rare laryngeal chondrosarcoma.

Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

Comments: The Discussion contextualizes the case within the broader literature on chondrosarcomas, and the Conclusion brings the case back into focus, summarizing the importance of the conservative treatment approach. Both seem coherent with the results presented.

Literature

Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

Comments: The author cites a range of sources that seem relevant to the topic, suggesting a thorough engagement with existing literature.

Length

Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

Comments: The length of the paper seems appropriate for a case report and literature review. It's detailed but not excessively long. There does not appear to be a need for shortening it.

Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: The writing style is clear and appears to be at an appropriate academic level. It's understandable, with medical terminology used appropriately for the intended audience.

Further comments on the paper

Comments:

The paper would benefit from a clearer statement of its aims or goals in the Introduction. Including a keywords section could enhance the paper's visibility and searchability. Also, ensuring that all figures referenced in the text are present and correctly labelled would be important for the final review.

Reviewer 1: The case report is insightful and contributes valuable knowledge to laryngeal chondrosarcoma treatment. The abstract and conclusion are well-composed. However, explicitly stating the paper's objective in the Introduction could improve clarity. The literature cited is pertinent and supports the case well. No shortening is necessary as the length is suitable for the topic's significance.

Reviewer 2: The paper provides a comprehensive review and a noteworthy case study on a conservative approach to treating chondrosarcoma. The structure is logical, but it would benefit from explicitly defined keywords and aims. The discussion is relevant, though ensuring all figures are included would be beneficial.

Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - This manuscript is recommended for further publication

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Thanks,
Science Repository Team