An Updated Etiology of Hair Loss and the New Cosmeceutical Paradigm in Therapy: Clearing ‘the Big Eight Strikes’
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
Find attached comments.
1. Title: Implicating sugar, redox imbalance and PPAR-γ in hair loss: 2 Clearing ‘The Big 8 Strikes’ in the new cosmeceutical paradigm is misleading. I recommend to focus either first half or second that will be interesting for reader.
2.Table 1. The nine major types of alopecia as recognized in the medical community need to revise this is more general as per title this is main point so it should contains decent, good and quality information.
3.Font size for table and figure should be consistent and coherent which is distracting for reader.
4.Lots of information reader loss interest.
5.Critical analysis missing.
6.Author threw lots of data without putting it in story.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my manuscript. I have done my best to address your points as follows;
1. I have changed the title to something that makes more sense, considering the subject matter in the review.
2. I have updated the table to make it more information dense and I have added more references.
3. I have matched the font size and text size to meet the requirements of MDPI template.
4. There is lots of information, but the manuscript is broken into sections so that readers can ignore any information that is not relevant to them.
5. I have edited the abstract to help the reader to understand where the critical analysis is performed.
6. There is lots of data in every section. Because of the niche readership, the cascading ideas will only make sense to those who are specifically interested. However, because there are many subsections, readers can choose what they find interesting and ignore the rest.
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract
The abstract consists of a succinct description of the reasoning behind the review and its contents, while also stirring an interest in the subject. On the other hand, while there is a decidedly academic and fluent use of the English language, the beginning of the abstract tends to be too abrupt, and the mentioning of the figures contained seems excessive for the abstract.
Article
The text is divided into four main topics:
• Introduction, • The big eight strikes, in simple terms • Clearing the big 8 strikes with cosmeceuticals to improve hair • ConclusionsThe whole body of work is coherent, comprehensive, and very well documented, as it cites multiple relevant publications, mainly from the last 5 to 10 years. Furthermore, despite its significant length, the text is exceptionally reader-friendly, being divided into multiple subchapters and using original figures and tables that are properly described and overall helpful.
While there are small, presumably typing errors throughout the text and figures (for example, in figure 5), the main idea of the text is not disturbed by them, so they do not represent a hinderance.
The conclusions are eloquent and concise, while also conveying the key message of the review. The conclusions underlined the shortcomings of current treatment options for alopecia while also hinting at the opportunity for progress through further study in the field.
Overview
In conclusion, this article is proficient in evaluating the use ofcosmeceuticals in alopecias as it consists of valuable and remarkably exhaustive research in the field of alopecia and its cosmetic approach. In conclusion, this review which improve current practice and motivate further pharmaceutical and clinical research in the field.
Overall, the manuscript should be accepted after minimal language editing.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read this rather large piece of writing, and thank you for your kind comments.
I have rewritten the abstract according to your request, and I have read the whole thing from top to bottom to find typographical errors. I cannot promise I found everything, but I did find many areas for improvement.
Reviewer 3 Report
Table 1:
in alopecia areata "vernacular" diffuse hair loss. Usually alopecia areata presents AREAS of alopecia (patches), diffuse presentation is an exception
Chemotherapy induced effluvium: description is too short and does not clarifies anything
Tinea capitis description: add that hairs are broken
Traction alopecia description: the hairs are not shedded. The terminal hairs which can be tractioned desappear with fibrosis and at the end there are only vellus hairs that are shorter and can not be tractioned.
References are present only in primary and secondary cicatricial alopecia
70: folliculitis decalvans instead of follicular decalvans. The same mistake is repeated in other places. Please search for them and correct all.
Fig, 2: The authors give permission to use them?
251: The term scleroderma, no longer used nowadays, but used by Whiting, can be confused with the disorder scleroderma, so better to use it as "scleroderma"
357: the big strikes are not symptoms. They area described in 363 as comorbidities or potentiators or hair loss, better than symptoms
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read this manuscript. I have attended to your comments/suggestions in the following way;
Table 1:
in alopecia areata "vernacular" diffuse hair loss. Usually alopecia areata presents AREAS of alopecia (patches), diffuse presentation is an exception Corrected as requested
Chemotherapy induced effluvium: description is too short and does not clarifies anything I elaborated as requested
Tinea capitis description: add that hairs are broken Completed as requested
Traction alopecia description: the hairs are not shedded. The terminal hairs which can be tractioned desappear with fibrosis and at the end there are only vellus hairs that are shorter and can not be tractioned. Corrected as requested
References are present only in primary and secondary cicatricial alopecia I have increased references as requested
70: folliculitis decalvans instead of follicular decalvans. The same mistake is repeated in other places. Please search for them and correct all. Corrected as requested
Fig, 2: The authors give permission to use them? Yes! This figure belongs to the corresponding author, which was used in a previous paper, published in 2018
251: The term scleroderma, no longer used nowadays, but used by Whiting, can be confused with the disorder scleroderma, so better to use it as "scleroderma" Corrected as requested
357: the big strikes are not symptoms. They area described in 363 as comorbidities or potentiators or hair loss, better than symptoms I have made changes to avoid calling them symptoms as requested, by calling them as either comorbidities or etiological factors.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author,
1.Can you provide points where did you made changes ?
Where is response letter to reviewer?
2.I do not see major changes in these version?
Author Response
Dear reviewer
I have attached the previous response letter below.
I have used track changes throughout the changes made to the manuscript so that you can clearly see where changes were made.
The manuscript was given a thorough proofread. Because the first author works professionally as an English language editor, the proof reading is considered to be at a professional level.
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my manuscript. I have done my best to address your points as follows;
1. I have changed the title to something that makes more sense, considering the subject matter in the review.
2. I have updated the table to make it more information dense and I have added more references.
3. I have matched the font size and text size to meet the requirements of MDPI template.
4. There is lots of information, but the manuscript is broken into sections so that readers can ignore any information that is not relevant to them.
5. I have edited the abstract to help the reader to understand where the critical analysis is performed.
6. There is lots of data in every section. Because of the niche readership, the cascading ideas will only make sense to those who are specifically interested. However, because there are many subsections, readers can choose what they find interesting and ignore the rest.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author, 1. I have changed the title to something that makes more sense, considering the subject matter in thereview. -Title and inside content contradict .
2. I have updated the table to make it more information dense and I have added more references. -i do not see changes. Just few sentences corrected.
3. I have matched the font size and text size to meet the requirements of MDPI template. -OK
4. There is lots of information, but the manuscript is broken into sections so that readers can ignore
any information that is not relevant to them. -Not necessary to put unnecessary things there are lots of good reviews on these topics, you just cover interesting topics.Reader even don't see these if you throw unnecessary data. Review is synthesis of literature to your title you have lots of data that is not necessary falls out of scope.
5. I have edited the abstract to help the reader to understand where the critical analysis is performed. -Title,abstract and outline are still contradicted. See title carefully it. Abstract cover theme not few things. Still you cant see big picture fothis titlele.
6. There is lots of data in every section. Because of the niche readership, the cascading ideas will only
make sense to those who are specifically interested. However, because there are many subsections,
readers can choose what they find interesting and ignore the rest. -Lots of unnecessary information is lost in scientifically interesting information but these reviews lack a consistent/coherent story. 7.Conclusion: Should be Answer to your question and your novelty supported by facts and statement.
