Officinal Plants as New Frontiers of Cosmetic Ingredients

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript provides a thorough and well-organized review of officinal plants with potential cosmetic applications, supported by detailed phytochemical and pharmacological evidence. It is scientifically sound and clearly written, with valuable insights into both traditional uses and modern formulations. However, the manuscript would benefit from improved organization of content, more critical evaluation of cited studies, and clarification of methodology. I suggest revising the manuscript as per the comments:

Title : Officinal Plants as New Frontiers of Cosmetic Ingredients

 

The manuscript is well-written, comprehensive, and highly informative. It systematically reviews the phytochemical and cosmetic relevance of a wide range of medicinal plants. The writing is mostly clear, and the review is structured with a scientific approach. The inclusion of mechanisms, clinical data, and traditional uses enhances its depth. However, there are areas where the manuscript could be improved for better clarity, completeness, and scientific rigor.

 

Major comments:

1. While the manuscript extensively reviews many plants, the scope can feel overly broad. Please consider narrowing the focus slightly or better grouping species by mechanisms (e.g., anti-aging, depigmenting) to enhance thematic clarity.I suggest to use subheadings in the discussion section to group plants by dominant cosmetic functions.
2. The methods are described as "narrative," yet a search strategy involving specific terms and inclusion criteria is described. This borders on a systematic review approach. Was a PRISMA flow diagram considered or applied to show study selection? Clarify whether this is truly a narrative review or a semi-systematic one, and consider summarizing search results in a table.
3. There is minimal discussion of the limitations of the studies cited (e.g., small sample sizes, lack of in vivo validation). Please add a paragraph discussing limitations of current evidence and highlight the need for more clinical trials.
4. Some sections (e.g., Camellia sinensis, Panax ginseng) repeat similar information (UV protection, MMP inhibition). Streamline by focusing on distinct contributions of each plant rather than repeating shared benefits.
5. Table 1 is helpful but needs standardization. Some activities are abbreviated, others not. There is no uniformity in plant part naming (e.g., “Fruit, bark” vs “Seed, skin”).I suggest harmonize terminology and consider adding a column on clinical evidence (e.g., in vitro, in vivo, clinical trial).
6. Figures 1–3 are referenced but were not rendered in the text you provided. Ensure high-resolution, labeled images/diagrams are included, especially where mechanisms of action are described.
7. Are the reviewed species currently used in commercial products? If yes, could you list examples or market trends?
8. Have potential allergenicity or irritancy profiles been reviewed for any species?
9. Could this be addressed in a short paragraph or added to the discussion?
10. Were any standardization challenges noted (e.g., variability in actives due to climate, harvest, etc.)?
11. How many of the reviewed species are supported by clinical trials? Could this be quantified in a summary table?

Minor Comments

1. Abstract:

• Line 6: “embraced a more holistic vision” → Consider “adopted a more integrative approach”.
• Line 22: “scientific evidence reviewed supports” → Better as “...supports the broader dermocosmetic integration…”
1. Introduction:
• Line 27: “psychophysical well-being” → Use “psychological and physiological well-being” for clarity.
• Line 41–42: Reword to avoid redundancy: “...growing body of scientific literature. Numerous studies have demonstrated…”
2. Methods:
• Line 82: Include search period clearly in methodology (you mention "Jan–Apr 2025" later).
• Line 93: Clarify language limitation—why only English? Any risk of missing significant data?
3. Species Descriptions:
• Check citation consistency: Several in-text numbers (e.g., [1, 2]) are used repeatedly—ensure that references are unique and correctly mapped.
• Consider reducing the word count per species by summarizing repetitive pharmacology.
4. Regulatory Context:
• Line 57: Expand slightly on EC Regulation 1223/2009. Mention implications for product claims and what constitutes a borderline product.

 

 

Author Response

MAJOR COMMENTS

Comment 1: While the manuscript extensively reviews many plants, the scope can feel overly broad. Please consider narrowing the focus slightly or better grouping species by mechanisms (e.g., anti-aging, depigmenting) to enhance thematic clarity. I suggest to use subheadings in the discussion section to group plants by dominant cosmetic functions.

Response 1: Thanks for the suggestion. Although plants have multiple activities, the subtitles, in the discussion section, have been inserted as suggested.

Comments 2: The methods are described as "narrative," yet a search strategy involving specific terms and inclusion criteria is described. This borders on a systematic review approach. Was a PRISMA flow diagram considered or applied to show study selection? Clarify whether this is truly a narrative review or a semi-systematic one, and consider summarizing search results in a table.

Response 2: As reported in the method section, this is a narrative bibliographic review (that’s why, we didn’t consider PRISMA approach). The results have already summarized in Table 1. Thank you for the comment.

Comments 3: There is minimal discussion of the limitations of the studies cited (e.g., small sample sizes, lack of in vivo validation). Please add a paragraph discussing limitations of current evidence and highlight the need for more clinical trials.

Response 3: specific paragraph has been added, as requested. Thank you for your suggestion.

Comments 4: Some sections (e.g., Camellia sinensis, Panax ginseng) repeat similar information (UV protection, MMP inhibition). Streamline by focusing on distinct contributions of each plant rather than repeating shared benefits.

Response 4: Thank you for the observation. We thought to report the information for each plant, even if repetitive, because this is exactly what happens in the plant kingdom. The plant is in itself a complex organism, equipped with numerous activities. However, at the beginning of the discussion, some summary lines of the distinct contributions of each plant have been reported.

Comments 5: Table 1 is helpful but needs standardization. Some activities are abbreviated, others not. There is no uniformity in plant part naming (e.g., “Fruit, bark” vs “Seed, skin”). I suggest harmonize terminology and consider adding a column on clinical evidence (e.g., in vitro, in vivo, clinical trial).

Response 5: Table 1 has been revised, according to the suggestions (uniformity in plant part naming, harmonization of terminology). However, the addition of another column risks, in our opinion, making the table too full and confusing. The presence of individual bibliographic references allows to understand whether these are preclinical or clinical studies. Furthermore, the abbreviations have been inserted only for recurring activities between different species (with the same aim of not making the table overcrowded).

Comments 6: Figures 1–3 are referenced but were not rendered in the text you provided. Ensure high-resolution, labeled images/diagrams are included, especially where mechanisms of action are described.

Response 6: High-resolution versions of Figures 1–4 have now been provided as separate PNG files, in accordance with the journal’s formatting requirements. All figures are correctly cited in the main text, and each is accompanied by a corresponding legend to ensure clarity and consistency.

Comments 7: Are the reviewed species currently used in commercial products? If yes, could you list examples or market trends?

Response 7: Yes, many of the plant species reviewed in our article are currently used in commercial dermocosmetic products. For instance, Prunus amygdalus var. dulcis oil is included in products such as HydraVit Gel, where it is utilized for its emollient and antioxidant properties. Vitis vinifera leaf extract, rich in polyphenols, is found in AgeReverse Lifting Complex Cream due to its anti-aging and photoprotective effects. Zingiber officinale root oil, valued for its antioxidant and toning actions, is present in BodyDefine Cream. Solanum lycopersicum extract, a natural source of lycopene with photoprotective activity, is included in Lumina Anti-Age Mask. Aesculus hippocastanum extract, known for its microcirculatory and anti-edema properties, is formulated into BodyDefine Cold Gel. However, we did not want to include commercial names of products, so as not to advertise and possibly diminish the role of plants in this context.

Comments 8: Have potential allergenicity or irritancy profiles been reviewed for any species?

Response 8: Hypersensitivity may be present at an individual level, but is not specific or related to the use of a particular plant, and for this reason it was not reported in the manuscript.

Comments 9: Could this be addressed in a short paragraph or added to the discussion?

Response 9: For the reasons stated above, it was not deemed necessary to include it. Thanks anyway for your observation.

Comments 10: Were any standardization challenges noted (e.g., variability in actives due to climate, harvest, etc.)?

Response 10: This work does not include the analysis of the variability of the active principles (if present), but it is implicit in every plant that the variability factors of living beings must always be taken into account (endogenous genetic and non-endogenous factors, exogenous environmental and artificial factors).

Comments 11: How many of the reviewed species are supported by clinical trials? Could this be quantified in a summary table?

Response 11: A substantial portion of the reviewed species are supported by at least one clinical trial, although the strength and quality of evidence vary. For this reason, quantifying it in a summary table does not seem convenient. For information, however, among the plants discussed, clinical studies in humans have been reported for: C. sinensis (multiple clinical trials confirm its efficacy in reducing sebum production, acne lesions), A. hippocastanum (human studies support its use in chronic venous insufficiency), P. ginseng (several clinical trials demonstrate anti-aging, moisturizing, and photoprotective effects), P. amygdalus var. dulcis (clinical evaluations confirm its moisturizing and soothing properties), Z. officinale (recent human studies support its role in promoting wound healing) For the other medicinal plants (L. barbarum, S. lycopersicum, R. nigrum, K. Africana, D. ramentacea) clinical data remain limited.

 

MINOR COMMENTS

Comments 1: Line 6: “embraced a more holistic vision” → Consider “adopted a more integrative approach”.

Response 1: The phrase has been changed, as requested.

Comments 2: Line 22: “scientific evidence reviewed supports” → Better as “...supports the broader dermocosmetic integration…”

Response 2: The phrase has been changed, as requested.

Comments 3: Line 27: “psychophysical well-being” → Use “psychological and physiological well-being” for clarity.

Response 3: The phrase has been modified, as requested.

Comments 4: Line 41–42: Reword to avoid redundancy: “...growing body of scientific literature. Numerous studies have demonstrated…”

Response 4: The sentence has been reworded, as suggested.

Comments 5: Line 82: Include search period clearly in methodology (you mention "Jan–Apr 2025" later).

Response 5: Thank you for your observation. The search period has been added.

Comment 6: Line 93: Clarify language limitation—why only English? Any risk of missing significant data?

Response 6: We considered only articles in English, because in the field of medicinal plants it would have been difficult to understand which vernacular name (often used instead of the Latin name) of the plant the article referred to. Furthermore, articles in English are generally easier to find as full text, compared to those in other languages. The following explanatory sentence has been added to the text: “It was necessary to prefer only the English language, in our research, because the naming of plants (where the Latin binomial is not used) becomes difficult to interpret. Vernacular names are sometimes tough to trace back to specific species.”

Comment 7: Check citation consistency: Several in-text numbers (e.g., [1, 2]) are used repeatedly—ensure that references are unique and correctly mapped.

Response 7: The bibliography has been revised and renumbered throughout the manuscript.

Comment 8: Consider reducing the word count per species by summarizing repetitive pharmacology.

Response 8: Unfortunately, it is not advisable to reduce the number of words per species, since there are plants that have received more studies and have more activities (even if repetitive) than others and it is good that this emerges.

Comment 9: Line 57: Expand slightly on EC Regulation 1223/2009. Mention implications for product claims and what constitutes a borderline product.

Response 9: Some explanatory and summary sentences of the Regulations 1223/2009 have been added to the text, as suggested.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the required corrections and suggestions are in the manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Authors want to thank the reviewer for the useful corrections. These have been reported highlighted in the text of the manuscript, using the revision system. Below is the detail of the comments.

Comment 1: Add refereces

Response 1: All bibliographic references have been included, as requested by reviewer 2.

Comment 2: In Italic

Response 2: The requested words in italics have been changed.

Comment 3: Why? The orders do not have any good informations?

Response 3: We considered only articles in English, because in the field of medicinal plants it would have been difficult to understand which vernacular name (often used instead of the Latin name) of the plant the article referred to. Furthermore, articles in English are generally easier to find as full text, compared to those in other languages.

Comment 4: "such as"

Response 4: "such as" has been delated, as requested.

Comment 5: seeds, leaf, fruit, bark, etc

Response 5: In the table, as highlighted in the text, all words have been changed to their plural form as requested.

Comment 6: Soja, adds Family and references.

Response 6: Family and reference have bee added to the text.

Comment 7: it is not the same reference style. and wich part?

Response 7: the style of the bibliography has been standardized throughout the text of the all manuscript. The part of H. procumbens has been added, as requested.

Comment 8: attributed largely 

Response 8: attributed largely was changed in largely attributed, as requested by reviewer 2.

Comment 9: Center the Immage

Response 9 : Figure 2 has been centered.

Comment 10: Add plant family and reference

Response 10 : The reference has been added, but the family of gindeng was already present in the text. Thanks anyway.

Comment 11: is it the name of this compound? Kindly add structure for all the compounds mentioned in the manuscript.

Response11: The neme has benn corrected and the structure for the compounds mentioned has been added, as Figure 3. We didn't include all the chemical formulas because it could have become too long and confusing, but above all because in plants it's not just one molecule that works.

Comment 12: is it the same plant?

Response 12: Yes, it is. The name has been implemented also in the title. Thank you for your observation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a comprehensive and well-structured review of medicinal plants with potential applications in dermocosmetics. The authors have meticulously compiled scientific evidence to support the cosmetic benefits of various botanical extracts, reinforcing their relevance in modern skincare. The literature review is thorough, and the discussion is well-organized, covering a wide range of plant species and their bioactive compounds. some minor revision is listed as follows:

Line 20: "phytoterapy" → "phytotherapy"
Line 231–232: "Glycine soja (L.) Merr., is native..." → Missing article: "Glycine soja (L.) Merr., a species native..."
Line 385–386: Repetition of "Recent studies have expanded peppermint’s application..."
References: Some journal names are abbreviated inconsistently (e.g., J. Agric. Food Chem. vs. International Journal of Molecular Sciences). Standardize for consistency.

Author Response

Comments 1: Line 20: "phytoterapy" → "phytotherapy"

Response 1: The word "phytotherapy" has been corrected, as suggested.

Comments 2: Line 231–232: "Glycine soja (L.) Merr., is native..." → Missing article: "Glycine soja (L.) Merr., a species native..."

Response 2: The phrase has been changed, as requested.

Comments 3: Line 385–386: Repetition of "Recent studies have expanded peppermint’s application..."

Response 3: The repetition has been removed. Thanks for the observation.

Comments 4: References: Some journal names are abbreviated inconsistently (e.g., J. Agric. Food Chem. vs. International Journal of Molecular Sciences). Standardize for consistency.

Response 4: We have checked all over the manuscript, but we have not found any stylistic inconsistencies. If we have not understood the question, please highlight the exact problem.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

The revised manuscript seems to be improved significantly after revision as per suggestions. I think the revised MS can be considered for its publication.