Terminological and Grammatical Study of Essential and Fatty Oils of Plants from the Austrian, Hungarian, Spanish, and Belgian Pharmacopoeias (19th Century)

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections, modifications and changes highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

It has been improved as detailed in the Reviewer’s point-by-point comments below.

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

It has been improved as detailed in the Reviewer’s point-by-point comments below.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

It has been improved as detailed in the Reviewer’s point-by-point comments below.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Must be improved

Must be improved

It has been improved as detailed in the Reviewer’s point-by-point comments below.

Figures have been improved.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The authors presented a paper entitled Terminological and grammatical study of essential and fatty oils of plants from Austrian, Hungarian, Spanish, and Belgian pharmacopoeias (19th century)

The topic may be interesting, but I have several major concerns about this paper as reported below:

- Lines 18-20. Why only Hungarian? And the other languages?

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. It is modified in lines 18-20.

Comments 2: Lines 20-21: What?

Response 2: It has been modified in line 21.

Comments 3: The importance and meaning of these results must be described also in the abstract.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. The importance and meaning of the results were described in the Abstract.

Comments 4: Line 57: The correct term is organs of plant, and this is not actually true, not all organs.

Response 4: Thank you for this comment. We modified the "parts of plants" to "organs of a plant".

Comments 5: Essential oils are also antioxidant mainly and this must be included in Line 58.

Response 5: It is inserted into the noted point.

Comments 6: It is not clear why you chose to focus on these specific pharmacopeias.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. Ph. Hg. I., as the first Hungarian Pharmacopoea follows mostly the structure of Ph. Austriaca V. Ph. Hisp. and Ph. Belg. were selected according to a similar period (19^th century), to compare the content and Latin terminology of oils of these countries having other geological and natural environments, and wide intercommunication (lines 114-118).

Comments 7: What is the novelty of this review?

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. The frequent and widespread use of plant oil has significantly improved in recent phytotherapy. These facts provide several studies on the safe use and treatment indications, as well as explanations and studies of their terminology in pharmacopoeias and other sources. Our study represents a contribution to the cultural context of the topic.

Comments 8: What is the background for this research? What moved you to do this, in practice? Not exactly clear.

Response 8: Thank you for your comment. During teaching activity of pharmacy students, we deal with prescriptions prepared in the last centuries, focusing on the Latin terms and changes in grammar of the mentioned, e.g., in the case of plants’ oils.

Comments 9: How do you explain these different numbers of oils in the different pharmacopeias? This aspect should be discussed, too.

Response 9: Thank you for your comment. Plants from the American continents, such as Nicotiana tabacum, Theobroma cacao, or Capsicum annuum, including also exotic species, were continuously introduced into European medicine and pharmacy. Several plants and drugs became known and popular only after the Spanish conquest in Mexico and Peru. In the compound remedies of Ph. Matritensis (1739), e.g. jalapa (16x), peru, copaiba (4x) and tolu balsam, cortex of Chinchona pubescens (6x), Sarsaparilla from Smilax officinalis, and drug of Sassafras spp. (7x) present as the most frequently mentioned drugs. The cacao butter became an official adjuvant also in Ph. Hg. I.

Comments 10: Sub-sections in Section 3 are not correctly numbered.

Response 10: Thank you for your comment. Subsections in Section 3 were correctly renumbered.

Comments 11: Sections 3.2-3.3: Fine with this list of terms, but there is no real discussion of this data. What do they mean in your context? What is your opinion on these terms? Are they correct or not? Would you have written something differently? I would like to see some contribution from you in these Sections.

Response 11: Thank you for your comment. These aspects were inserted in lines 227-229.

Comments 12: Table 1: Some names of species are no longer accepted. This datum should be inserted somewhere here.

Response 12: Thank you for your comment. The current version of MPNS, published in May 2017, contains 384,000 unique names for only 26,000 plants (https://uppsalareports.org/articles/navigating-the-plant-names-jungle/). The datum is inserted into lines 517-518.

Comments 13: What about the uses of these oils in Table 1? What is your opinion on this? Do you think they are appropriate or not? Would you have use them differently? I would like to see some contribution from you here.

Response 13: Thank you for your comment. Among the listed essential and fatty oils in Table 1 some oils are applied in official forms described in recent pharmacopoeias (e.g. those of Cinnamomum verum, Citrus x aurantium, Linum usitatissimum, or Olea europaea), while others as less-studied oils are also mentioned for various indications in publications (e.g. oil of Lilium candidum). The listed source plants provide good starting point for the analyses of oil content extracted from the used organs.

Comments 14: Why this specific case study?

Response 14: Thank you for your comment. Several studies are continuously published on the medicinal and pharmaceutical uses of plant oils, with a primary focus on essential oils for physical and mental health. Among the cc. 3000 known essential oils, cc. Three hundred oils are applied in medicines, pharmaceutical preparations, cosmetic products, perfumes, and in the food industry. Based on these facts, our case study focuses on the terminological and grammatical evaluation of the mentions, Latin descriptions, and uses of oils from various plants and plant organs in the selected works.

Comments 15: I did not see any discussion on the methods of preparation and amounts to be used. What is your opinion on this? Do you think they are appropriate or not? Would you have use them differently? I would like to see some contribution from you here.

Response 15: Thank you for your comment. The quantities of oils mentioned in the selected pharmacopoeias are likely excessive, but the preparation methods are suitable for contemporary phytotherapy. The proper quality and the correct storage of the remedies are under stronger control these days.

Comments 16: Conclusions are too superficial.

Response 16: Conclusions were modified and completed in the corrected version.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment.

5. Additional clarifications

We have no further clarifications or notes for the corrected version of our manuscript. Thank you for your work and comments.

Comments 3: At the end of the Materials and Methods section, there should be a brief explanation of why Austrian pharmacopoeias are predominant.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. The recommended explanation was inserted at the end of the Materials and Methods section.

Comments 4: The quality of Figure 1 should be improved using image editing tools, as in some cases the text is difficult to read.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. The quality of Figure 1 was improved.

Comments 5: Consult with the editor to see if it is permissible to include the PHG logo in the publication.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. The PHG logo can be found in the heading of the publication.

Comments 6: The resolution of Figure 3 should be improved.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. The quality of Figure 3 was improved.

5. Additional clarifications

We have no further clarifications or notes for the corrected version of our manuscript. Thank you for your work and comments.               

For research article

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1.    Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections, modifications and changes highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

It has been improved as detailed in the Reviewer’s point-by-point comments below.

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

It has been improved as detailed in the Reviewer’s point-by-point comments below.

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

It has been improved as detailed in the Reviewer’s point-by-point comments below.

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

It has been improved as detailed in the Reviewer’s point-by-point comments below.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Are all figures and tables clear and well-presented?

Must be improved

Yes

It has been improved as detailed in the Reviewer’s point-by-point comments below.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The authors have presented an interesting study: a historical analysis of the terminology of essential and fatty oils in old pharmacopoeias. However, the current version of the article lacks a clear, logical explanation of the purpose and significance of this work. To improve the manuscript, the authors are encouraged to consider the following points and revise some sections accordingly.
- The introduction should justify the choice of pharmacopoeias, in particular, explaining the inclusion of the Spanish Pharmacopoeia in the comparative analysis, as well as explaining why other European pharmacopoeias were not included.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. The explanation for the choice of selected pharmacopoeias, including the Spanish and Belgian Pharmacopoeia, is inserted and completed in lines 117-118.

Comments 2: The study objectives should clearly state why, in the authors' opinion, terminology research is important for both pharmaceutical and linguistic sciences.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment. The clear statement of study objectives was completed in lines 140-144.

Comments 3: The "Materials and Methods" section should specify the criteria for selecting the pharmacopoeias, the historical period covered, and the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of terms. It would even be useful to present a structured study design in place of the current descriptive text (lines 132–173). In any case, the authors should consider a clearer and more organized presentation of this section.

Response 3: The "Materials and Methods" section was completed according to the recommended aspects and questions.

Comments 4: The "Results" section primarily lists terms and grammatical forms from pharmacopoeias. It is important to include an analysis of the differences between pharmacopoeias and a discussion of how these differences influenced their subsequent development.

Response 4: The "Results" section was completed with the discussion of influence of described differences in the subsequent development of the selected pharmacopoeias (lines 227-229).

Comments 5: The "Discussion" section currently contains a significant amount of repetition. This section should be streamlined to highlight how the evolution and changes in essential oil terminology have influenced the development of technological methods and the analysis of plant materials in general.

Response 5: The "Discussion" section was modified and highlighted the influence of changes in essential oil terminology, and the analysis of plant materials in the selected works.

Comments 6: Is there any connection between the grammar of terms and practical pharmacy?

Response 6: This aspect was inserted and explained in lines 667-686.

Comments 7: It is important to highlight in the discussion how terminology changed during the transition from Latin to national languages, and what impact this process had.

Response 7: The change of terminology of oils during the transition from Latin to national languages was inserted in the "Discussion" section (lines 633-639).

Comments 8: The conclusion should emphasize the importance of conducting this comparative terminological study.

Response 8: Conclusions were modified and completed in the corrected version.

Comments 9: Furthermore, the manuscript contains grammatical and stylistic errors that should be corrected. Some parts of the text lack references to tables, and the tables themselves should be properly discussed in the main text.

Response 9: The grammatical and stylistic errors were corrected, and the references to tables were completed in the main text (sub-sections 3.2 and 3.3).

Comments 10: It would also be useful to briefly compare the historical data with the terminology of modern pharmacopoeias, noting the similarities and differences. This should be discussed briefly in the "Discussion" section.

Response 10: The comparison of historical data and terminology of modern pharmacopoeias was inserted and explained in the Discussion.

Comments 11: The manuscript contains grammatical and stylistic errors that should be corrected (for example: “the oils belong to essential oils of higher numbers”, etc).

Response 11: Thank you for your comment. The grammatical and stylistic errors were corrected in the text.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. The English has been improved in the highlighted points of the manuscript.

5. Additional clarifications

We have no more clarifications and notes for the corrected version of our manuscript. Thank you for your work and comments.