Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Recommendation: Publish after minor revisions noted:

The authors describe the “Green Chemistry in Organic Synthesis: Recent Update on Green Catalytic Approaches in Synthesis of 1,2,4-Thiadiazoles.”is good draft.

Comments:

1.        Figure 4: Bioactive thiadiazole scaffold structures not in proper format .Check it.

2.        Provide more examples of Schemes recent years research work details and explore the uses of green Catalytic Approaches.

3.        Provide more green solvents details in the table.

4.        Authors should cite recent publications for the introduction.  Should be more elaborative.

5.        A through grammatical check, Space, Commas (,), spelling mistakes must be performed for the entire manuscript.

Author Response

Dear worthy Editor/Reviewer-1

Authors are thankful to editorial office and reviewer-1 for suggestions in form of revisions to improve the paper. All suggestions are properly incorporated in paper. Reviewer Comments are given in italic while response to reviewer comments is given in plane text. We have carefully scrutinized the suggestions mentioned by our worthy reviewer and in accordance of reviewer’s comments, we have revised the manuscript.  In general, all the recommendations and suggestions have been addressed and incorporated in the manuscript.

We hope that revised manuscript would be satisfying for all requirements of editorial office and will be suitable for consideration for publication.

Kind Regards

Submitting Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 The reviewed article provides a review related to the topic of "green chemistry." This review presents types of green solvents, green catalysts, features of an ideal green organic synthesis, and approaches to green synthesis such as microwave irradiation, ultrasound, ionic liquids, solvent-free conditions, metal-free conditions, green solvents and heterogeneous catalysis to obtain various 1,2,4-thiadiazole scaffolds. Each of the presented parts of the article was developed and presented in a very clear manner. The entire article is coherent, closely related and presents results of high scientific value. In summary, each part of the publication has been described in detail, the charts, graphs presented are very clear to the audience. The conclusions are consistent and closely related to the research topic. As a reviewer of this work, I will not make any comments. I believe that the authors have exhausted all the topics contained in the reviewed work.

Author Response

Dear worthy Editor/Reviewer-2

I am thankful to you for reviewing our manuscript and your comments to accept this manuscript in the present form encourages us to further design such a review manuscript in this area of research.

I am highly thankful to you for your recommendation for publication of this manuscript in the esteemed Journal Catalysts.

Thanks and regards

Submitting Author 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors present comprehensive review about systemized types of green solvents, green catalysts, ideal green organic synthesis characteristics  and  the green synthetic approaches such as microwave irradiation, ultrasound, ionic liquids, solvent  free, metal free conditions, green solvents and heterogeneous catalysis to furnish different 1,2,4-thiadiazoles scaffolds.

 

The manuscript is well written and prepared. Easy to read and follow. The following changes need to be made, in order to further improve the manuscript quality:

1.       Line 25 should be dot “.” instead comma “,”

2.       Fig.1 should be in the same style as others, more esthetic and readable

3.       it is enough that the approaches are mentioned in the text and in the figure 2, there is no need to bullet them

4.       Numeration of titles should be in one style (1.0 or 1.)

5.       in my opinion authors should focus on more suitable literature instead more publication (in table 1 and 2)

6.       in able 1 should be mentioned ionic liquids as catalist

7.       line 106: “as depicted in Figure 1” isn’t nessesery

8.       bracket {} in the citation {71,72}  ® [71,72]

9.       citations should be in the form recommended by the editors

10.   The authors cite the solvents and catalysts used in the synthesis very widely, I am convinced that quoting a smaller amount but a better match would increase the value of the publication - it is worth paying attention to the publications that have already appeared in Catalysts - in the same journal it is easiest to find valuable publications similar thematically.

Author Response

Dear worthy Editor/Reviewer-3

Authors are thankful to editorial office and reviewer-3 for suggestions in form of revisions to improve the paper. All suggestions are properly incorporated in paper. Reviewer Comments are given in italic while response to reviewer comments is given in plane text. We have carefully scrutinized the suggestions mentioned by our worthy reviewer and in accordance of reviewer’s comments, we have revised the manuscript.  In general, all the recommendations and suggestions have been addressed and incorporated in the manuscript.

We hope that revised manuscript would be satisfying for all requirements of reviewer as well as editorial office and will be suitable for consideration for publication.

Kind Regards

Submitting Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf