Some Bioactivities of Isolated Apigenin-7-O-glucoside and Luteolin-7-O-glucoside
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. written in scientific name please according to scientific name role, for the first complete writing, the next writing is abbreviated
2. pada result 3.2. sebelum tabel tolong tambahkan narasi beberapa kalimat
3. Tabel 1. penulisan nama ilmiah disesuaikan
4. pada result 3.3. sebelum tabel tambahkan narasi
5. Pada 3.4. tolong tambahkan narasi sebelum tabel
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. As you have suggested, the required corrections have been accomplished and rearranged. The revised manuscript was uploaded to the journal system.
Sincrely
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The attached article " Some Bioactivities of Isolated Apigenin-7-O-glucoside and Luteolin-7-O-glucoside" by Karaoğlan et al. Proposed isolations of two known compounds from Stachys lavandulifolia column chromatography. This article is good. I recommend following major suggestions will enhance the paper quality .
-Abstract: The abstract logic of the expression for the target of the target compound and its role must be highlighted along with the aim of this article. It does not show a proper link with the methodology and highlights the significance finding of the article.
-Introduction: line 38 onward must be include the introduction of the species and its general characters
The flow of the aforementioned parts in the introduction is challenging to follow. In particular, lines 82-85 don't seem to relate much to this paper. From a scientific and linguistic perspective, it should start with the importance of bioactive and across regions.
-Aims and objectives of the current study are missing
- Methodology: It is essential that the authors clearly explain their methodology and mentioned a detailed about the analysis of NMR, as well as justify whether GC-MS analysis have been done for this specie? NMR and Please provide the UV spectra and NMR spectra.
_ Please make another heading about identification of plants and please mentioned the name of taxonomist who identify the plant.
- Overall, the paper appears to be descriptive and there is no statical model. I will propose to apply some models to make the reader's comprehension easier.
-Result. Need more justification and detail.
Discussion: Is very week that needs to be more detailed. Why do the methods in the manuscript have these characteristics and what are the significant results? And what findings were compared? This should be summarized in depth
I will suggest to the authors must highlight the most significant results and need to compared with the earlier studies
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. As you have suggested, the required corrections have been accomplished and rearranged. The revised manuscript was uploaded to the journal system.
Sincrely
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
thank you, the manuscript has been corrected according to the comments, I agree with your improvement, there are no more comments from me.
Reviewer 2 Report
Accepted
