BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Articles Published Processes Featured Articles Journals Submit a Manuscript
Article Quality Tracking
Lu HL, Yu F, Zhou HF, Hu P, Gan SL. Clinical significance of bone metabolic markers in osteoporosis-complicated type 2 diabetes mellitus and risk determinants: A retrospective study. World J Diabetes 2026; 17(8): 123389 [DOI: 10.4239/wjd.123389]
(4) (3) (0) (0) (1) (71)
Reviewer's ID:
03468197
Submitted on:
August 12, 2026, 11:46
Peer-Review:
Anonymous
Reviewer's Country:
Türkiye
Conflicts-of-interest statement

Reviewers should recognize, acknowledge and disclose any potential conflict of interest that may include (but not be limited) to the following, and inform the editorial office immediately upon discovery of any conflict of interest, stopping if the article review process is underway.

Close personal and/or professional relationship with the author(s); submitted similar or competing manuscripts to BPG or other journals; studied together with the author(s) and/or has former student, resident, fellow, mentor or family relative relationship; and have had in last 5 years collaboration or common grants and/or publications or financial interest with the authors?
Criteria for Article Quality Tracking-Peer-Review

The mission of BPG is to comply with publishing ethics/standards established by the industry and to publish high quality articles. In addition, we strive to make a strict peer-review of each article submitted, and tracking the scientific quality of each is the mission of the editorial board members and/or peer-reviewers.

The following evaluation points are for editorial board members and/or peer-reviewers’ reference only in evaluating an article:

1 Ethics: Does the ethical approval form provided by the author meet the requirements?

2 Methods: Is the experimental method effective? Can it be repeated by fellow researchers (according to adequate textual/citation content presented)?

3 Results: Are the results true and authentic? Is the theory or hypothesis of universal significance validated or partially validated?

4 Figures and tables: Does the author provide perfect tables, line charts and/or graphs? Or, does the author provide figures and tables that are confusing, poorly constructed and/or not well-annotated?

5 Biostatistics: Does the author provide perfect biostatistics data? Or, does the author provide tables and line charts that have mistakes in the data?

6 References: Does the author scientifically and reasonably cite the latest references which are important in this field and related to the scientific problems and research hypotheses addressed in the study? Or, does the author self-cite, omit, mis-cite and/or over-cite references?

7 Language: Does the language in article correctly, clearly and concisely express the information? Or, does the article have multiple grammatical and spelling mistakes?

8 Caveats or drawbacks: What are the caveats or drawbacks for the results?

Comments to Authors
Please make a specific and meaningful evaluation on the objectivity, credibility and scientific quality of the article according to above listed criteria. Please identify which issues have been resolved by the author and which not, what problems still exist, and which method the author intends to adopt to solve the problem in the next step, etc. Your high quality conclusion will also be advantageous for the author’s efforts in conducting future research, will contribute to raising the reader’s interest, and will promote discipline development. Please fill in your detailed comments to authors at below:
In this manuscript, authors stated ‘Has increased significantly’ which was a strong epidemiologic claim and needed supporting data and reference. They also wrote ‘Clinical significance of BMMs’. I think this statement was vague. More precise phrasing would be ‘To compare bone metabolic markers (BMMs) between patients with T2DM with and without OP and identify factors independently associated with OP’. In methods section, authors wrote ‘Using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry as the gold standard’ which was also imprecise. DXA was the standard method for assessing bone mineral density and diagnosing osteoporosis, but ‘gold standard’ may depend on the diagnostic criteria used. Authors should state the specific diagnostic threshold and criteria. In presentation of the findings, authors wrote overloaded variables. It would be clearer to prioritize the clinically important findings; age, HbA1c, PTH, and β-CTX. The long list of nonsignificant variables added considerable clutter. They should be presented in tables. I also noted that authors used ‘OP comorbidity’ and ‘T2DM patients with comorbid OP’ terminology. I found them awkward. I recommend authors to prefer ‘osteoporosis in patients with T2DM’ or ‘coexisting osteoporosis’ phrases. Similarly, ‘risk determinants’ terminology implied causality. But, the study was observational. I recommend ‘independent factors associated with OP’ or ‘independent risk factors’ terms. In discussion and conclusion sections, authors stated that ‘PTH provides valuable guidance for OP diagnosis’ which overstated the findings presented in results section. An association didn’t establish diagnostic utility. Unless diagnostic performance was evaluated, authors should wrote that elevated PTH ‘may be associated with the presence of OP’.
Author Awards
1 Award aims: To praise the authors who have made outstanding contributions by publishing original and innovative Basic study, Clinical study, Case report and/or Review in any of the 43 open-access publications of BPG. Their publications represent meaningful contributions towards promoting the ability of readers to get the latest research results and towards the development of medical science. To thank such authors for their contributions, we have set up the ‘Baishideng Distinguished Award’ to track the quality of articles and award the corresponding authors.

2 Selection methods: Editorial board members will track the quality of the published articles in each issue, so that they can recognize excellent articles and categorize them for recommendation. Then, the annual Baishideng Distinguished Award winners will be selected according to the recommendation categories and the academic influence of the articles. The indexes for academic influence of the articles involves the number of citations, clicks and downloads the paper received.

3 Number of awards: Among articles published in the 43 journals of BPG, 12 total articles (3 Reviews, 3 Basic studies, 3 Clinical studies and 3 Case reports) will be recognized and their authors awarded.

4 Award amounts: The first prize will be 5000 USD. The second prize will be 3000 USD. The third prize will be 2000 USD. In addition, each winner will be presented an official certificate for their Baishideng Distinguished Award.

5 List of winners: The list of Baishideng Distinguished Award winners will be announced on the official BPG website.
Editorial board members and/or peer-reviewers should categorize articles according to the following recommendation categories, with consideration to results of the Track Article Quality assessment to identify excellent articles:
All content on this site: Copyright © 1993-2026 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.