Designing Hydrogel-Based Bone-On-Chips for Personalized Medicine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are some weaknesses through the manuscript which need improvement. Therefore, the submitted manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in this form, but it has a chance of acceptance after a major revision. My comments and suggestions are as follows:

1- Abstract gives information on the main feature of the performed study, but some details about the reviewing process must be added.

2- Authors must clarify necessity of the performed research. Objectives of the study must be clearly mentioned in the last part of introduction.

3- The literature study must be enriched. In this respect, authors must read and refer to the following papers: (a) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2020.112105 (b) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coelec.2020.02.012

4- Since this is a review paper, authors must add several figures (from previous published papers) to show concept and some conditions.

5- The main reference of each formula must be cited. Moreover, each parameters in equations must be introduced. Please double check this issue.

6- There are too much texts without any table and figure. Author must read some review papers to see how a review papers must be prepared.

7- In its language layer, the manuscript should be considered for English language editing. There are sentences which have to be rewritten.

8- The conclusion must be more than just a summary of the manuscript. List of references must be updated based on the proposed papers. Please provide all changes by red color in the revised version.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this review, the authors provide the required information on bone, hydrogel, and bone-on-a-chip to develop personalized therapies and recreation of clinical scenarii. The manuscript is divided into 3 parts that cover the basic biology of the bone, a basic understanding of hydrogels, and finally, a comprehensive review bone-on-a-chip that covers the last decade. It also provides guidelines for the definition of personalized pathological and physiological bone microenvironments. The manuscript is well written, full of information. The first parts summarize the bone biology and the hydrogel properties, which allows a better understanding of the final parts (bone-on-a-chip and personalized bone-on-a-chip). Minor comments. Figure 1: the frame of the extruded view is broken. I believe from the white background of the arrow.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been improved and corresponding modifications have been conducted. It can be considered for publication.