Title : Altered activation state of circulating neutrophils in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration

Background and the knowledge gap : a new significant project to get new insights on the functional state of circulating neutrophils detecting some different complex clusters of differentiation CDs present on the cell surface of these cells. This study is one of the large number of references that suggest a changeable CD coats during inflammatory activity in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. I think from my perspective that the title somewhat failed to address the content of this work adequately and come to be so general without specification of the important points in results. A faint presentation of a somewhat good results.

It is my primary focus to mention that the abstract architecture is very significant to be sectioned and paragraphed in a good manner. In most top journals the abstract are sectioned and organized into, background and aim, ,methodology, results , and finally conclusion. In this study the methodology and study subjects merged with the main results, as I saw furthermore, in other studies published at the journal. On the other hand , another study published also in this journal entitled " Herpes virus seroepidemiology in the adult Swedish population" at the same volume adapted my preferred manner in organizing the abstract. So the policy of the journal regarding the presentation of abstract should be unified in all published research articles. I think the conclusion needs more attention about to say " novel evidence suggesting that the activity of circulating neutrophils" because it was an antinational state . Before suggest anything it’s a conclusion u have to summarize it.

The background and Introduction is written in a good comprehensive way but I think it needs to be summarized to be short and rich . Also the methodology is written in a good manner with no relatively gaps or missing procedures.

My intake on results let me say this is quite a nice organizing results but Im disappointed with the figures legends. All Figure legends are poorly describes providing less appropriate amount of information regarding the measured values. I expect the legend to describe briefly experimental procedures, statistical values indicating to be very clear for the reader.