Recent Advances in the Phytochemistry of Bryophytes: Distribution, Structures and Biological Activity of Bibenzyl and Bisbibenzyl Compounds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very useful contribution from the leader in the field and should be published. However, the manuscript is still in draft form and needs many things:

1. Send to an English proof reading service as definite articles, sense, tense etc are in need of editing.

2. Structures are missing some atoms.

3. Plant names are missing Latinisation in some cases and there are many places where a lack of spaces make it hard to read.

4. Finally, the references are appalling - in multiple styles and missing Latin names and some name errors for journals. 

Once the above have been dealt with, the authors MUST roof read the final manuscript. I attach my annotations, but I gave up full correction - too many errors which could have been avoided. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above

Author Response

Reviewer’s Comment	Authors Reply (added with highlightes in revised text)
Line 6	done
Line 10	done
Line 53	done
Line 56	done
Line 58	done
Line 77	done
Line121	done
Line 123	done
Line 132	done
Table 1 (n.a.)	Full stop omitted in  the entire table
Line 183	done
Line 191	done
Line 214	done
Line224	done
Line225	done
Line 229	done
Line 232	done
Line 278	done
Line 280	done
Line 284	done
Figure 6	Structure 65 and 139 corrected (earlier file no./ was Fig 7 i.e. corrected here)
Line 326	done
Line 333	done
Line 340	done
Line 352	done
Line 387	done
Line 390	done
Line 401	done
Line 404	done
Line 510	done
Line 567	done
Line 621	done
Fig 9	Structure 96 and 48 corrected (Fig.  10 has changed to Fig.9)
Fig 10	Corrected (earlier fig 11)
Fig 11	Corrected )earlier it was fig.12)
Fig 14	Corrected earlier Fig.15
Line 817	done

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The present study evaluates  the advances in the phytochemistry of Bryophytes, with a focus on the biological activity of bibenzyls and bisbibenzyls. The research subject is interesting and brings scientific important data in the field. Some changes of the manuscript should nevertheless be performed in order to improve its quality. Following specific changes should thus be performed:

Minor changes

            All scientific names of species should be italic. Please consult https://powo.science.kew.org/ or https://mpns.science.kew.org/mpns-portal/ for correct names of vegetal species. Moreover, please use correct nomination of species: first time they appear in text, you name them with full latin name and paternity and just afterwards you can use the abbreviation of the species.

I think that size of Table 1 can be reduced by editing the size of columns.

Major changes

Title: I do not understand the purpose of using the word “distribution” – does it refer to the compounds or to species of bryophytes?

Abstract: This section does not offer an overview of the study. It has way too many generalities and almost nothing specifically related to the study. The purpose of the study is not clear. This part should specifically state in 1-2 phrases each section of the manuscript.

Introduction: This section should offer an overview or a state of the art regarding the subject chosen for study. Only reduced informations are offered. Similar studies existing in scientific literature should be presented and authors need to compare the purposes of the study with these studies. Afterwards, authors need to clarify what the present study brings in novelty. It is very important to state what exactly you bring in novelty in order to express your originality. In fact, I cannot understand where you present generalities, where you state the purpose of the study and what is the purpose of the images. In fact, images are not even mentioned in text. Paragraphs are not separated. There is no proper connection between different concepts of the Introduction. The purpose of the study needs to be found in the last paragraph and be clearer. I do not undestand from this section if you refer to specific bryophytes (species) or you selected a family/clade that you treat specifically. Please modify accordingly the whole section. This section needs serious review.

I think that in your specific part you need to perform comparison with similar studies (some comparisons are performed) in term of findings, so that you can be able to emphasize novelty and originality of your study in this section once again, in terms of findings and not purposes, like in the Introduction.

A review should offer a cristical discussion of the subject, so you need to perform this, there are some sections that lack these discussions.

Conclusions: Please remove references, they should not be found in this section.

References and their editing do not follow the recommendations of the journal.

All these suggested changes should be performed in order to bring further improvements to the manuscript. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language needs moderate changes.

Author Response

Reviewer’s Comment	Authors Reply (added with highlightes in revised text)
All scientific names of species should be italic. Please consult https://powo.science.kew.org/ or https://mpns.science.kew.org/mpns-portal/ for correct names of vegetal species. Moreover, please use correct nomination of species: first time they appear in text, you name them with full latin name and paternity and just afterwards you can use the abbreviation of the species.	This point is covered e.g. Section2 Marchantia polymorpha L. (highlighted)
I think that size of Table 1 can be reduced by editing the size of columns.	Reduced and fit to text
Title: I do not understand the purpose of using the word “distribution” – does it refer to the compounds or to species of bryophytes	“distribution” refers to compounds present in different species…for eg. Marchantin A first time reported from Marchantia polymorpha but later on from different species of the genus Marchantia or different liverwort taxa are compiled from the taxa these compounds are reported
This section does not offer an overview of the study. It has way too many generalities and almost nothing specifically related to the study. The purpose of the study is not clear. This part should specifically state in 1-2 phrases each section of the manuscript	Please see the present version it is highlighted where the purpose is written
This section should offer an overview or a state of the art regarding the subject chosen for study. Only reduced informations are offered. Similar studies existing in scientific literature should be presented and authors need to compare the purposes of the study with these studies. Afterwards, authors need to clarify what the present study brings in novelty. It is very important to state what exactly you bring in novelty in order to express your originality. In fact, I cannot understand where you present generalities, where you state the purpose of the study and what is the purpose of the images. In fact, images are not even mentioned in text. Paragraphs are not separated. There is no proper connection between different concepts of the Introduction. The purpose of the study needs to be found in the last paragraph and be clearer. I do not undestand from this section if you refer to specific bryophytes (species) or you selected a family/clade that you treat specifically. Please modify accordingly the whole section. This section needs serious review	This part is revised and purpose or objectives is mentioned in the last para i.e. highlighted. Here not a single genus or family is selected. As this review covers the distribution of bibenzyls and bisbibenzyls compound discovered till date since its first discovery, the available literatures from different database was covered.   Please see highlighted phrase
Conclusions: Please remove references, they should not be found in this section.	Removed
References and their editing do not follow the recommendations of the journal	Edited in journal style. please see this version

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions are now fine. Well done on a nice paper which will be well cited.

Author Response

As the file is ok..no further revision required

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The present study evaluates  the advances in the phytochemistry of Bryophytes, with a focus on the biological activity of bibenzyls and bisbibenzyls. The authors performed some of the suggested changes after the first round of review. Following specific changes should still be performed:

Minor changes

            Please do not forget to correct the names of species in legends of figures.

Major changes

Title: If the word “distribution” refers to the compounds, then add “of compounds”, because it is not clear.

Abstract: The purpose of the study is still not clear.

Introduction: This section is not significantly improved, so I will leave some of my my previous comments here. Similar studies existing in scientific literature are still not presented. Novelty and originality are not clear. In fact, I cannot understand where you present generalities, where you state the purpose of the study and what is the purpose of the images. Images are not even mentioned in text. There is no proper connection between different concepts of the Introduction. The purpose of the study needs to be found in the last paragraph and be clearer. I do not undestand from this section if you refer to specific bryophytes (species) or you selected a family/clade that you treat specifically. This section still needs serious review.

I still did not find the part where you perform comparison with similar studies in term of findings, so that you can be able to emphasize novelty and originality of your study in this section once again, in terms of findings and not purposes, like in the Introduction. This observation is not even addressed by authors.

Another observation that is not even addressed by authors is related to the cristical discussion of the subject, that are not offered and should be, according to the article type.

Overall, I find that the manuscript is not significantly improved after the first round of review.

All these suggested changes should be performed in order to bring further improvements to the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is fine, minor changes are required.

Author Response

 

.

 

Question of Reviewer	Response of Author
Minor changes             Please do not forget to correct the names of species in legends of figures	Revised
Major changes Title: If the word “distribution” refers to the compounds, then add “of compounds”, because it is not clear	Added and highlighted with blue font...the word compounds added
Abstract: The purpose of the study is still not clear.	Rewritten and highlighted with blue font
Introduction: This section is not significantly improved, so I will leave some of my my previous comments here. Similar studies existing in scientific literature are still not presented. Novelty and originality are not clear. In fact, I cannot understand where you present generalities, where you state the purpose of the study and what is the purpose of the images. Images are not even mentioned in text. There is no proper connection between different concepts of the Introduction. The purpose of the study needs to be found in the last paragraph and be clearer. I do not undestand from this section if you refer to specific bryophytes (species) or you selected a family/clade that you treat specifically. This section still needs serious review. I still did not find the part where you perform comparison with similar studies in term of findings, so that you can be able to emphasize novelty and originality of your study in this section once again, in terms of findings and not purposes, like in the Introduction. This observation is not even addressed by authors. Another observation that is not even addressed by authors is related to the cristical discussion of the subject, that are not offered and should be, according to the article type. Overall, I find that the manuscript is not significantly improved after the first round of review.	Images provide are renumbered and properly connected with text. Not a family or clade is reviewed here but the liverworts reported for bibenzyl and bisbibenzyl compounds are surveyed. Also other bryophytic taxa other than liverworts are reported with these bibenzyl and bisbibenzyl compounds are presented as reported in literature   The critical comparison and the limitations are highlighted with blue font and some major changes are done to maintain the flow.

 

.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The present study evaluates  the advances in the phytochemistry of Bryophytes, with a focus on the biological activity of bibenzyls and bisbibenzyls. The authors performed some of the suggested changes after the second round of review. Following specific changes should still be performed:

 Major and minor changes

Names of species are not corrected in titles of figures.

Abstract: You have a repetition “Small phenolic molecules”. Line 25: which compound?

Introduction: I still find that there is no proper connection between different concepts of the Introduction. Maybe adding paragraphs and connecting them would make everything clearer.

All these suggested changes should be performed in order to bring further improvements to the manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language needs minor changes.

Author Response

The present study evaluates  the advances in the phytochemistry of Bryophytes, with a focus on the biological activity of bibenzyls and bisbibenzyls. The authors performed some of the suggested changes after the second round of review. Following specific changes should still be performed:

 Major and minor changes

Names of species are not corrected in titles of figures.

ANS: Corrected highlighted in blue font

Abstract: You have a repetition “Small phenolic molecules”. Line 25: which compound?

Ans ……….It means bisbibenzyls and bibenzyls see line 12

Introduction: I still find that there is no proper connection between different concepts of the Introduction. Maybe adding paragraphs and connecting them would make everything clearer.

Ans. Rewritten…please see blue font with yellow highlight part

All these suggested changes should be performed in order to bring further improvements to the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx