Artificial Intelligence in Cosmetic Formulation: Predictive Modeling for Safety, Tolerability, and Regulatory Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have carefully read the manuscript entitled “Artificial Intelligence in Cosmetic Formulation: Predictive Modeling for Safety, Tolerability, and Regulatory Perspectives” and found it to be technically rigorous and comprehensive in its treatment of AI applications in cosmetology. To further enhance its readability and impact, I respectfully offer the following suggestions:

1. Acronym Definition and Consistency
   Several abbreviations are introduced without prior definition or later standardization (e.g., QSPR on line 129; SMOTE on line 237; EEG on line 428; CNN on line 431). Please define each acronym upon first use and then use consistently throughout the text.
2. Paragraph Length
   Many sections contain very long paragraphs (notably 3.1.1–3.1.7; 3.2.1–3.2.2; and 3.3). I recommend breaking these into smaller, thematically focused paragraphs to guide the reader more smoothly through each topic.
3. Presentation of Key Results

Please consider revising the presentation of the key results by compiling critical data, such as R² values, sample sizes, and algorithms used—into concise tables within each subsection, and by consolidating all AUC and related performance metrics in a single “Model Performance” paragraph or table rather than scattering them across lengthy sentences for easier reference.

4. Missing Reference
   In Section 3.1.1, the paragraph beginning at line 134 currently lacks a citation. Please insert the appropriate reference to support the statements made in that passage.

Thank you for your excellent work. I believe these editorial adjustments will improve clarity and better highlight the manuscript’s valuable contributions.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We sincerely thank you for the positive evaluation of our manuscript and for the valuable suggestions provided. We appreciate your favorable review and constructive comments, which have helped us to further improve the quality of the manuscript.

1. We confirm that the abbreviations that appeared before a previous full definition have been corrected, and each acronym is now preceded by its complete term at first mention.
2. Thank you for the suggestion regarding paragraph length. Following your advice, some longer paragraphs have been divided into two sub-paragraphs to enhance readability, for example, sections 3.1.7, 3.1.8, and 3.2.1.
3. In addition, we have summarized the paragraphs containing the largest amount of numerical data by incorporating concise tables, which make the results clearer and more accessible to readers. The length of these paragraphs has also been reduced accordingly. These changes have been implemented in sections 3.1.7, 3.1.8, and 3.2.1. We believe these modifications contribute to a clearer presentation of the content.
4. Finally, the missing references in section 3.1.1 have been added as recommended.

Once again, we thank you sincerely for your careful review and insightful comments, which have significantly strengthened our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a useful review paper giving many details of an emerging, exciting tool used in different areas of cosmetic science. It is relatively well organized and gives a lot of useful information; references are interesting and relevant. As this is a review of earlier work, it is a question of personal taste how this material could or should be organized, so I would not like to let my preferences interfere with those of the Authors'. 

However, I would recommend a formal change - I would suggest separate Discussion and Conclusions sections (the current Discussion and Conclusion section is in my opinion too long and complex). Dividing the D&C section into 2 parts would probably be insufficient - lines 678-690 are a sort of a closing remark, but I find them too vague and general to become a separate Conclusions section. 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments and suggestions.

Following your recommendation, we have created a distinct section for the Conclusions, separate from the Discussion, in order to improve the overall structure and clarity of the manuscript. Some key elements from the final part of the previous combined Discussion and Conclusion section have been concisely reformulated and included in this new Conclusions section, as you suggested. We believe that this revision enhances the manuscript’s readability and provides a clearer take-home message for readers.

Thank you again for your thoughtful feedback and valuable input.