Enhancement of Anticancer, Antibacterial, and Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition Activities from Oscillatoria sancta under Starvation Conditions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I do not see significant faults to mention about this paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I do not see significant faults to mention about this paper.
Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1. (in red)
Thanks too much for your comment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this manuscript, the growth pothential of Oscillatoria sancta was investigated on BG11 and Zarrouk’s media. The scientific problems of this study are clear, the logic of text is good and the analytical methods are reliable. However, there are some problems in manuscript writing. So, I recommend to you that this manuscript can be accepted after major modification. The following are the flaws of this manuscript and revision suggestions:
1. The introduction section only describes the general background, without introducing the research progress and existing problems at home and abroad in detail for the research contents of this manuscript.
2. The equations in the manuscript are vague，such as line 112, 145,166, etc,..
3. Some figuers in the manuscript are also distorted and blurred，such as Figure1, Figure2, etc,.
4. The conclusion part needs to summarize the research results, which needs to be rewritten.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
General Point:
First, we are very appreciative of the great efforts of the reviewer in reviewing our manuscript, and we are very thankful for all the valuable comments and suggestions, which have improved our manuscript. In this regard, below we provide detailed answers to each of the requests and concerns raised by the reviewers. Moreover, we have attached a revised version of our manuscript that includes the suggested corrections. In this manuscript, the growth potential of Oscillatoria sancta was investigated on BG11 and Zarrouk’s media. The scientific problems of this study are clear, the logic of text is good, and the analytical methods are reliable. However, there are some problems in manuscript writing.
Response 1:
Thanks too much for your comment
Point 1:
The introduction section only describes the general background, without introducing the research progress and existing problems at home and abroad in detail for the research contents of this manuscript.
Response 1:
Deep thanks for comment and suggestion. Introduction corrected in the manuscript.
Point 2:
The equations in the manuscript are vague such as line 112, 145,166, etc,..
Response
Done. We apologize for confusion, authors corrected and clarified the equations in the manuscript.
Point 3:
Some figuers in the manuscript are also distorted and blurred，such as Figure1, Figure2, etc
Response
Done, Corrected in the manuscript
Point 4:
The conclusion part needs to summarize the research results, which needs to be rewritten
Response
Done
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
I think this article is very important and interesting. It is written in an accessible and understandable way. I recommend this article for publication in its current form.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
General Point:
I think this article is very important and interesting. It is written in an accessible and understandable way. I recommend this article for publication in its current form.
Response 1:
Thanks too much for your comment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The text of the manuscript has been significantly improved, but the figures need to be modified. It is suggested to provide pictures with higher definitions.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Second Round
Point 1:
The text of the manuscript has been significantly improved, but the figures need to be modified. It is suggested to provide pictures with higher definitions.
Response 1:
Done
Response to e-mail
Point 1: Please revise your manuscript according to the referees’ comments and upload the revised file within 2 days.
Response 1:
Done, and all changes were made through track Changes as the attached file.
Point 2: Please use the version of your manuscript found at the above link for your revisions.
Response 2:
Done, all correction according to Your recommendation.
Point 3: Please check that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript.
Response 3:
Done, all correction according to Your recommendation.
Point 3: Any revisions made to the manuscript should be marked up using the “Track Changes” function if you are using MS Word/LaTeX, such that changes can be easily viewed by the editors and reviewers.
Response 3:
Done.
Point 3: Please provide a short cover letter detailing your changes for the editors’ and referees’ approval.
Response 3:
Done.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
