The Advancement of Herbal-Based Nanomedicine for Hair
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comment:
Nanomedicine is defined defined as the use of nanomaterials for diagnosis, monitoring, control, prevention and treatment of diseases (Tinkle et al., 2014). The authors provided only 9 nanomedicine reviews on hair treatment based on herbal extract. The rest of the review is about general usage of herbal extract on hair treatment which is unrelated to the title of this manuscript. The authors of this manuscript need to increase the citation of other papers related to nanomedicine on hair treatment. This is unacceptable.
The authors lack of proofreading of the manuscript. The spacing and the format of the manuscript contains many mistakes (i.e. in line 296, Wnt/ B catenin. “Wnt/ B catenin” should be written in “Wnt/β-Catenin”.)
The table in this manuscript is incomplete. In table 2, the right hand side lacks of line.
Detail comments:
Introduction:
1. Line 42: Spacing is not aligned with the previous paragraph.
2. Line 48: “aboutUS$2,875” should be “about US$2,875”
3. Many more spacing and format need to be corrected
Hair Morphology:
1. Line 134, 138. The list is not aligned with each other.
2. In section 2, each sub-section is very short and the order is not well arranged. If the summary of the hair morphology is very short, instead of using paragraph to present, the authors can summarize in a table.
3. Line 99, the author should give citation to provide the evidence that the dermal papilla contains melanocyte stem cell.
4. Many more spacing and format need to be corrected
Skin delivery:
1. In Section 3 “Skin delivery”, the meaning of “Skin delivery” is unclear.
2. In Section 3”skin delivery”. The authors only provided transepidermal rotute of drug delivery. There are other possibility of drug delivery route in skin layer, such as transappendageal route.
3. Many more spacing and format need to be corrected
4. Line 215, “00 nm” is incorrect.
5. In Table 1, second row, “00 nm” is incorrect.
Hair problems and mechanism:
1. This section is irrelevant to the title of the manuscript.
2. Many more spacing and format need to be corrected.
3. Name of signalling pathway is incorrect. “in line 296, Wnt/ B catenin. “Wnt/ B catenin” should be written in “Wnt/β-Catenin”.)
4. The content of table 3 is too less.
Hair cycle modulation:
1. This section is irrelevant to the title of the manuscript.
2. Many more spacing and format need to be corrected.
Herbal treatment:
1. This section is irrelevant to the title of the manuscript.
2. Many more spacing and format need to be corrected.
Herbal plants for hair care:
1. This section is irrelevant to the title of the manuscript.
2. Many more spacing and format need to be corrected.
Summary:
1. Many more spacing and format need to be corrected.
Reference
Tinkle, S., McNeil, S. E., Mühlebach, S., Bawa, R., Borchard, G., Barenholz, Y. C., et al. (2014). Nanomedicines: addressing the scientific and regulatory gap. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1313, 35–56. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12403
Author Response
Thank you for the valuable comments we have incorporated in the revised draft.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the review article "A Comprehensive Review on Herbal Hair Nanomedicine" authors has collected high volume of data but there is writing and designing the article bunch of technical, grammatical and formatting errors was done that need to extensive revision and editing before further processing,
e.g. have a look to the sentence "A protein kinase enzyme that has negative effects on hair follicle growth." on Page 15, line 442, technically looks wrong. Another example on same page 15 (line 452) is the appearance of two figure captions (Fig. 6 & 7) cited together in wrong order. There are many such mistakes of English, formatting and technical in whole manuscript, need to very carefully address.
There has also been cited a big volume of unwanted data, need to convert into comprehensive story.
Use Latest references, preferably.
Author Response
Thank you for the valuable comments we have incorporated in the revised draft.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript presents a comprehensive review on herbal hair nanomedicine. The manuscript is generally well written, but it is unclear what this review adds to what is already known and have been published earlier. No clear research question seems to be formulated, the conclusions are unclear and other major concerns with this manuscript that make it not acceptable for publication.
My specific comments are stated below. Overall, several important issues need to be addressed and some are of methodological character which requires a considerable revision of the paper.
1. I recommend formulating a specific research question and performing a meta-analysis to answer the question.
2. The introduction section did not provide a clear rationale for carrying out the study (for example, why is your research question important? What gap in the literature is the study addressing?
3. Methods: Was the study registrered at PROSPERO?
4. Methods - literature search and selection: Please outline the exact search string or provide an appendix with the search strategy with specific search outcomes for each search and combinations.
5. Methods - literature search and selection: Did you restrict study selection on any language?
6. Methods. The authors have not performed a systematic review, according to international standards PRISMA Guidelines, so they do not provide specific numerical data.
7. Results. Please, provide clear results and describe them. Use appropriate statistics.
8. Discussion. Please include this section and you compare of the results and describe the results, the limitations.
9. Conclusion. These conclusions need to be softened, modified a in order to reflect only the study findings.
10. References. Incorrect. In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105).
Author Response
Thank you for the valuable comments we have incorporated in the revised draft.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper does not improve much after the first revision. Many spacing and format mistake. Some of the scientific terms are incorrect and misunderstood.
Author Response
All comments requested are addressed as per reviewers' suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The author has addressed all the comments, However, thereare few typo and grammatical mistakes still exist, need care full reading to
fix them. Further, in reference list recently published good article are missing
I reccomend to cite such as
Naqvi, S. A. R., Idrees, F., Sherazi, T. A., Hassan, S. U., & Ishfaq, N. (2022).
TOXICOLOGY ASSOCIATED WITH HEAVY METALS FOUND IN COSMETICS.
Journal of the Chilean Chemical Society, 67(3), 5615-5622.
Retrieved from https://jcchems.com/index.php/JCCHEMS/article/view/1964
Author Response
All comments requested are addressed as per reviewers' suggestions.
Response: Typo and grammatical mistakes are corrected and incorporated in the revised manuscript and highlighted in yellow.Cited above reference as 144.
Reviewer 3 Report
My opinion about the article remains the same of the first revision of manuscript. Most of the issues that I advanced to you were not go repaired. A new study would be needed to make these things suitable. The clarifications provided do not solve the problem.
Author Response
All comments requested are addressed as per reviewers' suggestions.
We have revised section 3 for biological barrier ,different nanoformulations studied for herbal hair care and important information added as new table no 1.Changes also made in abstract. Now this review contains morphology of hair ,skin and strategy to overcomes with nanomedicine carriers like nanoparticles,liposomes,Ethosomes,solid lipid nanoparticles etc there formulations strategy and characterization invitro and invivo study.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The title of this paper is Herbal Hair Nanomedicine. Strictly speaking, only 11 citations are about nanoparticles. And this paper full of typos and wrong spacing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Though the title is Herbal nanomedicine we have added all aspects of biological barriers,other contents that is essential as comprehensive review.These 11 citation for herbal nanomedicine are case studies that are providing proof of concept.
If you suggest we can change title your help highly scientifically appreciated.
Thank you regards
PSG
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to thank the authors for their work, however I did not feel the authors made any significant improvements with regards to the main issues I raised in the first and second review. In its present state the paper provides no clear evidence that the authors proposed method for described in detail the physiological barriers of hair that need to be overcome for delivery to hair problems, the hair cycle, its morphology and various mechanisms of herbal-based medicine acting on hair by modulating the hair cycle to treat hair loss in the targeted population. The authors still need to make substantial changes inline with the issues raised in the first and second review. Indeed, the authors need add the section of discussion should interpret the results in line with the publication cited in the introduction section and taking the limits of the study into account. Too, include conclusion and references section and remove the last section number 9 summary
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comment.we have added added references based on the previous study and highlighted.
Thank you
Regards
PSG
Round 4
Reviewer 1 Report
After the previous three round, the authors still are lack of proofreading of the manuscript. A careful proofreading is needed.
Reviewer 3 Report
My comments to this manuscript are the same of previous revisions. The problems remain the same. I think the manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research that support the enhancing the quality and transparency of health research with data that supports the conclusions. In particular, that follow the PRISMA guidelines more info in EQUATOR network https://www.equator-network.org/
