Standardization of Romanian Galeopsis tetrahit Leaf Extract in Verbascoside Using a Validated UHPLC–PDA Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is written correctly and can be published in the submitted version.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to address you many thanks for your accurate observations and valuable comments. We used all these and improved the paper accordingly.

Reviewer #1 questions/comments

Comments 1:

The manuscript is written correctly and can be published in the submitted version.

Response 1:

Thank you very much for pointing this out.

Authors very much appreciated the encouraging and constructive comments on this manuscript by the Reviewer.

We would like to thank the Reviewer again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

 

Kind regards,

Andrei BIŢĂ, PhD

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Journal: Plants

Article: "Standardization of Romanian Galeopsis tetrahit Leaf Extract in Verbascoside Using a Validated UHPLC–PDA Method"

• " Standardization of Romanian Galeopsis tetrahit Leaf Extract in Verbascoside". This statement is unclear. How is an extract evaluated in a compound?
• "Fresh aerial parts of tetrahit, with a focus on fully developed leaves, were harvested". "A weighed quantity of 20 g of powdered G. tetrahit leaves was transferred to an Erlenmeyer flask and extracted". Sometimes the author reported the use of the plant aerial parts and other times the leaves.
• Figures No. 2 bout UV and No. 3 about MS appear to be for a pure compound, while the label states they are for extracts.
• The antioxidant activity and phenolic content of Galeopsis tetrahit Leaf from the same country have been studied previously, so why are they being investigated again? Furthermore, the remaining results about Standardization of leaf Extract are too few to be the subject of a complete article; see reference 38.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to address you many thanks for your accurate observations and valuable comments. We used all these and improved the paper accordingly.

All changes in the revised manuscript were highlighted on a yellow background.

The following changes have been made to the Manuscript (ID: plants-4087077):

Reviewer #2 questions/comments

Journal: Plants

Article: “Standardization of Romanian Galeopsis tetrahit Leaf Extract in Verbascoside Using a Validated UHPLC–PDA Method”.

 

Comments 1:

“Standardization of Romanian Galeopsis tetrahit Leaf Extract in Verbascoside”. This statement is unclear. How is an extract evaluated in a compound?

Response 1:

Thank you very much for your observation. In pharmacognosy and herbal quality control, the term “standardization” refers to the quantitative evaluation of a complex extract using a chemically and biologically relevant marker compound. In the present study, verbascoside was selected as the quantitative marker due to its high abundance in G. tetrahit and its well-documented antioxidant and pharmacological relevance. Accordingly, the extract is not evaluated as a single compound, but rather standardized to a defined content of verbascoside (expressed as mg/g of dry extract) using a validated UHPLC–PDA method compliant with ICH Q2(R2) requirements. This marker-based approach is widely accepted for ensuring batch-to-batch consistency, reproducibility, and quality control of herbal extracts.

 

Comments 2:

“Fresh aerial parts of G. tetrahit, with a focus on fully developed leaves, were harvested”. “A weighed quantity of 20 g of powdered G. tetrahit leaves was transferred to an Erlenmeyer flask and extracted”. Sometimes the author reported the use of the plant aerial parts and other times the leaves.

Response 2:

Thank you very much for pointing this out. The manuscript already clearly states that fresh aerial parts were harvested with a focus on fully developed leaves, indicating that leaves were the target plant organ for the study. The reference to aerial parts describes the harvesting step, while all extraction and analyses were consistently performed using leaf material only. Therefore, the terminology reflects the actual experimental workflow and does not represent an inconsistency.

 

Comments 3:

Figures No. 2 about UV and No. 3 about MS appear to be for a pure compound, while the label states they are for extracts.

Response 3:

Thank you for your valuable feedback on Figures 2 and 3. The UV–PDA and MS spectra shown in the initial Figures 2 and 3 were acquired from the verbascoside peak detected directly in the G. tetrahit extract, not from an isolated or purified compound. The apparent similarity to a pure standard reflects the high spectral purity and excellent chromatographic resolution of verbascoside in the extract matrix. To avoid any ambiguity, comparative spectral confirmation against an authentic reference standard has now been explicitly described in the text. A detailed paragraph clarifying the PDA spectral matching procedure and acceptance criteria has been added to the manuscript. (See page 4, lines 147–149; page 5, lines 150–158 & 165–167; revised Figures 2 and 3).

 

Comments 4:

The antioxidant activity and phenolic content of Galeopsis tetrahit leaf from the same country have been studied previously, so why are they being investigated again? Furthermore, the remaining results about standardization of leaf extract are too few to be the subject of a complete article; see reference 38.

Response 4:

Thank you very much for your insightful comment.

The cited study (Ref. [38]) and the present manuscript address fundamentally different research objectives and are complementary rather than redundant. Ref. [38] represents a preliminary, comparative screening study that evaluated multiple Galeopsis spp. and plant parts using non-specific spectrophotometric assays (TPC, TFC, DPPH, ABTS, FRAP) and targeted phenolic acid profiling. That work identified G. tetrahit leaves as the most antioxidant-active material among the investigated species and highlighted the presence of phenylethanoid glycosides, including verbascoside, thereby justifying the selection of this species and plant part for further investigation.

In contrast, the present study is not a repetition of that screening, but a targeted, marker-based standardization study focused exclusively on G. tetrahit leaf extract. Its primary objective is the development, full validation, and application of a UHPLC–PDA method compliant with ICH Q2(R2) for the quantitative determination of verbascoside as a chemical marker. Such analytical method development, validation (linearity, accuracy, precision, specificity, LOD/LOQ, system suitability), and extract standardization were not performed or reported in the previous work.

The antioxidant assays included here serve a different purpose than in earlier study: they are used to contextualize the standardized extract and directly compare its activity with that of pure verbascoside, thereby supporting the selection of verbascoside as a biologically relevant marker compound. This comparative approach between extract and reference standard was not addressed in Ref. [38] and represents an added mechanistic and functional dimension.

Therefore, the present manuscript goes beyond preliminary phytochemical characterization and provides a regulatory-relevant, quantitative standardization framework for G. tetrahit leaf extract. The validated UHPLC–PDA method, high marker content determination, and marker–bioactivity relationship together constitute the core contribution of the article and justify its presentation as a complete, standalone study.

 

Comments 5:

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

Response 5:

Thank you very much for your observation. The English language has been improved to more clearly express the research.

 

Comments 6:

Figures and tables must be improved.

Response 6:

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. The Figures and Tables have been improved accordingly.

 

Authors very much appreciated the encouraging, critical, and constructive comments on this manuscript by the Reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript.

We would like to thank the Reviewer again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

 

We have also introduced other additions/modifications that we hope will improve the quality of the manuscript:

▪ Figures 2 and 3 have been modified accordingly.

▪ All abbreviations have been defined the first time they appear in the text.

▪ Some grammar, stylistic or spelling errors have been corrected.

 

Kind regards,

Andrei BIŢĂ, PhD

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The results presented and methods used in this study are of general acceptable standards. There are no major issues with the main text apart from the font size for the figures being too small to read comfortably. However, collectively, the findings are relatively preliminary. 

It is highly recommended that the authors expand the scope of this study to include the application of this method and demonstrate the validity and accuracy of the compound they have identified to be used as an appropriate quality control standard for this plant. For example, comparing different varieties of the plant, different extraction methods, different solvent extracts, plant mixtures, or plant processing methods and so on. 

For Figure 2, it will be good if the authors can overlay the UV spectra of their commercial standard with that of the plant extract. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to address you many thanks for your accurate observations and valuable comments. We used all these and improved the paper accordingly.

All changes in the revised manuscript were highlighted on a yellow background.

The following changes have been made to the Manuscript (ID: plants-4087077):

Reviewer #3 questions/comments

Comments 1:

The results presented and methods used in this study are of general acceptable standards. There are no major issues with the main text apart from the font size for the figures being too small to read comfortably. However, collectively, the findings are relatively preliminary.

Response 1:

Thank you very much for your insightful comment. The Figures were generated directly by the analytical and chromatographic software and are presented without any post-processing or graphical alteration, in order to preserve data integrity and authenticity. The font size and layout therefore reflect the original software output. If required by the Journal, the Figures can be resized or reformatted at the production stage without affecting the underlying data.

 

Comments 2:

It is highly recommended that the authors expand the scope of this study to include the application of this method and demonstrate the validity and accuracy of the compound they have identified to be used as an appropriate quality control standard for this plant. For example, comparing different varieties of the plant, different extraction methods, different solvent extracts, plant mixtures, or plant processing methods and so on.

Response 2:

Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion.

The comparative evaluation suggested by the reviewer was intentionally addressed prior to this study and is reported in Ref. [38], which represents the screening and selection phase of our research workflow. In that work, multiple Galeopsis spp. and plant parts collected from the same geographical region were systematically compared in terms of phenolic content and antioxidant activity. That comparative analysis identified G. tetrahit leaves as the most bioactive material and highlighted the relevance of phenylethanoid glycosides.

The present study was designed as a subsequent, focused standardization step, aiming to develop, fully validate, and apply a UHPLC–PDA method compliant with ICH Q2(R2) for the quantitative determination of verbascoside in G. tetrahit leaf extract. Expanding the scope to include additional species, extraction solvents, processing methods, or plant mixtures would shift the study away from analytical method validation and substantially alter its objective.

Within the context of this work, the validity and suitability of verbascoside as a quality control marker are demonstrated through rigorous analytical validation, high marker abundance in the extract, and comparative antioxidant evaluation against the pure reference compound. Broader comparative studies involving multiple matrices or processing conditions represent logical future applications of the validated method rather than requirements for its initial establishment.

 

Comments 3:

For Figure 2, it will be good if the authors can overlay the UV spectra of their commercial standard with that of the plant extract.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback on Figure 2. The UV–PDA spectrum shown in the revised Figure 2 corresponds to the verbascoside peak detected in the plant extract and was directly matched against the spectrum of the commercial reference standard using the software spectral matching algorithm. The identification was based on an excellent spectral agreement between the extract-derived analyte and the authentic standard, as described in the manuscript text, confirming that the two spectra are virtually identical. (See page 4, lines 147–149; page 5, lines 150–158; revised Figure 2).

 

Comments 4:

Figures and tables can be improved.

Response 4:

Thank you very much for pointing this out. The Figures and Tables have been improved accordingly.

 

Authors very much appreciated the encouraging, critical, and constructive comments on this manuscript by the Reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript.

We would like to thank the Reviewer again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

 

We have also introduced other additions/modifications that we hope will improve the quality of the manuscript:

▪ Figures 2 and 3 have been modified accordingly.

▪ All abbreviations have been defined the first time they appear in the text.

▪ Some grammar, stylistic or spelling errors have been corrected.

 

Kind regards,

Andrei BIŢĂ, PhD

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors report

« Standardization of Romanian Galeopsis tetrahit Leaf Extract in Verbascoside Using a Validated UHPLC–PDA Method ».

 

My remarks are given below :

The work is well written and well presented.

 

Abstract

The abstract is not well structured: an abstract should be structured as follows: introduction, materials, results, and conclusion.

The introduction and conclusion should be brief, and the results section should highlight the findings by providing some values.

Introduction

Page 2, line 58: fatty acids are not secondary metabolites

Page 2, Lines 83-84: You put this information in material section “The plant material used in this study was collected from southwest Romania flora, a site previously identified as yielding phenolic-rich G. tetrahit populations”.

 Results

I suggest we include Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as supplementary material.

For all numbers, use dots instead of commas.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to address you many thanks for your accurate observations and valuable comments. We used all these and improved the paper accordingly.

All changes in the revised manuscript were highlighted on a yellow background.

The following changes have been made to the Manuscript (ID: plants-4087077):

Reviewer #4 questions/comments

The authors report « Standardization of Romanian Galeopsis tetrahit Leaf Extract in Verbascoside Using a Validated UHPLC–PDA Method ».

My remarks are given below:

 

Comments 1:

The work is well written and well presented.

Response 1:

Thank you very much for pointing this out.

 

Comments 2:

Abstract

The abstract is not well structured: an abstract should be structured as follows: introduction, materials, results, and conclusion.

Response 2:

Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion. The abstract follows the Journal’s Guide for Authors, which explicitly requires a single-paragraph Abstract without headings, while adhering to the logic of a structured abstract. According to the Journal instructions, the Abstract should sequentially include background, methods, results, and conclusions without using section labels. The current Abstract was written in compliance with these requirements and presents the background, methodology, main findings, and conclusions in the prescribed format and order.

 

Comments 3:

The introduction and conclusion should be brief, and the results section should highlight the findings by providing some values.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion. The “Introduction” and “Conclusions” sections were written to provide sufficient scientific context and interpretation in line with the scope of an analytical method development and validation study. The “Results” section already highlights the key findings by reporting quantitative values throughout, including method validation parameters, marker content, and antioxidant activity data. Therefore, the manuscript structure and level of detail were considered appropriate and are consistent with the objectives of the study.

 

Comments 4:

Introduction

Page 2, line 58: fatty acids are not secondary metabolites.

Page 2, Lines 83-84: You put this information in material section “The plant material used in this study was collected from southwest Romania flora, a site previously identified as yielding phenolic-rich G. tetrahit populations”.

Response 4:

Thank you very much for your observation. The “Introduction” section has been revised accordingly. The term “secondary metabolites” has been replaced by “active principles”. The sentence “The plant material used in this study was collected from southwest Romania flora, a site previously identified as yielding phenolic-rich G. tetrahit populations” has been removed from the “Introduction” section. (See page 2, line 55; lines 82 & 83).

 

Comments 5:

Results

I suggest we include Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 as supplementary material.

Response 5:

Thank you very much for your insightful comment. Fig. 1 to Fig. 5 present primary analytical and validation data (chromatographic profiles, spectral identification, calibration, and method performance) on which the study’s conclusions are directly based. These Figures are therefore integral to the interpretation, transparency, and reproducibility of the work and cannot be considered supplementary in nature. For this reason, they were intentionally included in the main manuscript.

 

Comments 6:

For all numbers, use dots instead of commas.

Response 6:

Thank you very much for your insightful comment. The manuscript has been revised accordingly. (See Tables 1–4).

 

Comments 7:

Figures and tables can be improved.

Response 7:

Thank you very much for your insightful comment. The Figures and Tables have been improved accordingly.

 

Authors very much appreciated the encouraging, critical, and constructive comments on this manuscript by the Reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript.

We would like to thank the Reviewer again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

 

We have also introduced other additions/modifications that we hope will improve the quality of the manuscript:

▪ Figures 2 and 3 have been modified accordingly.

▪ All abbreviations have been defined the first time they appear in the text.

▪ Some grammar, stylistic or spelling errors have been corrected.

 

Kind regards,

Andrei BIŢĂ, PhD

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The main point in this field remains unanswered convincingly. The antioxidant activity of plant extract is a repetition of previous work, where the same methods were replicated in vitro to examine the plant's antioxidant activity. As in previous work, the phenolic compounds responsible for antioxidant activity in plants, including verbascoside, were identified using (HPLC/UV/MS) method (see reference 38). Therefore, this work is limited  in terms of " Standardization of Verbascoside in the extract".
2. The work would be relatively better if antioxidant activity tests were carried out in vivo method.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to address you many thanks for your accurate observations and valuable comments. We used all these and improved the paper accordingly.

All changes in the revised manuscript were highlighted on a yellow background.

The following changes have been made to the Manuscript (ID: plants-4087077):

 

Reviewer #2 questions/comments

Comments 1:

The main point in this field remains unanswered convincingly. The antioxidant activity of plant extract is a repetition of previous work, where the same methods were replicated in vitro to examine the plant’s antioxidant activity. As in previous work, the phenolic compounds responsible for antioxidant activity in plants, including verbascoside, were identified using (HPLC/UV/MS) method (see reference 38). Therefore, this work is limited in terms of “Standardization of Verbascoside in the extract”.

Response 1:

Thank you very much for pointing this out.

Reference [38] does not report standardization of G. tetrahit extract, nor does it describe validated quantitative determination of verbascoside. That study represents a preliminary comparative screening of multiple Galeopsis spp. and plant parts using non-specific spectrophotometric assays (TPC, TFC, DPPH, ABTS, FRAP) combined with targeted phenolic acid profiling. Its objective was to compare antioxidant and anti-acetylcholinesterase potential across species and to identify promising taxa for further investigation.

Importantly, in Reference [38], verbascoside was not quantified, standardized, or validated as a marker compound. Its name appears only once, in a literature-based contextual sentence listing classes of metabolites previously reported in Galeopsis spp., without experimental isolation, quantification, method validation, or extract standardization. No UHPLC–PDA method development, no ICH-compliant validation, and no marker-based quality control framework were presented in that work.

In contrast, the present manuscript addresses a fundamentally different and more advanced research question: the development, full validation, and application of a UHPLC–PDA method compliant with ICH Q2(R2) for the quantitative standardization of G. tetrahit leaf extract in verbascoside. This includes comprehensive assessment of specificity, linearity, accuracy, precision, sensitivity (LOD/LOQ), system suitability, and peak purity, followed by application of the validated method to determine marker content (345.8 ± 28.3 mg/g dry extract). None of these elements were part of Reference [38]. (See “2. Results” and “3. Discussion” sections).

The antioxidant assays included in the present study are not intended as a repetition of screening work, but rather serve a supportive, contextual role: (i) to functionally characterize the standardized extract, and (ii) to directly compare the extract’s activity with that of pure verbascoside, thereby supporting the selection of verbascoside as a biologically relevant quality-control marker. This extract-versus-marker comparison was not performed in the previous study. (See “2. Results” and “3. Discussion” sections).

Therefore, the novelty of the present work lies not in re-screening antioxidant activity, but in establishing a regulatory-grade, marker-based standardization framework for G. tetrahit leaf extract – an aspect that has not been previously reported for this species. The study builds logically upon the preliminary findings of Reference [38] and represents the next methodological step rather than a duplication of earlier work. (See page 3, lines 113–122).

 

Comments 2:

The work would be relatively better if antioxidant activity tests were carried out in vivo method.

Response 2:

Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion.

In vivo evaluation of antioxidant activity represents an important but distinct research direction that goes beyond the scope of the present study. This work was designed as an analytical method development and standardization study, focusing on the validated quantitative determination of verbascoside and the chemical characterization of the extract. The in vitro antioxidant assays were included to provide functional context and to support the selection of verbascoside as a relevant quality-control marker.

In vivo investigations require different experimental designs, ethical approval, dose optimization, and pharmacokinetic considerations and are therefore more appropriate as future studies building upon the validated and standardized extract established here.

 

Comments 3:

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

Response 3:

Thank you very much for your observation. The English language has been improved to more clearly express the research.

 

Authors very much appreciated the encouraging, critical, and constructive comments on this manuscript by the Reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript.

We would like to thank the Reviewer again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

 

Kind regards,

Andrei BIŢĂ, PhD

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is highly recommended for the authors to improve on the size of the figures especially the font sizes of the figure labels and axes. The other major concerns have been addressed adequately by the authors. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to address you many thanks for your accurate observations and valuable comments. We used all these and improved the paper accordingly.

All changes in the revised manuscript were highlighted on a yellow background.

The following changes have been made to the Manuscript (ID: plants-4087077):

 

Reviewer #3 questions/comments

Comments 1:

It is highly recommended for the authors to improve on the size of the figures, especially the font sizes of the figure labels and axes.

Response 1:

The figures were exported directly from the Empower 3 chromatography software and are presented without any post-processing or graphical modification in order to preserve the original analytical output. Resolution and display parameters were optimized within the software prior to export; however, font size and axis labeling are fixed elements of the native Empower export format. Any further resizing or graphical alteration would require manual editing outside the software environment, which was intentionally avoided to maintain data integrity. If required, figure resizing can be addressed during the Journal production stage without affecting the underlying data. (See Figures 1–5).

 

Comments 2:

The other major concerns have been addressed adequately by the authors.

Response 2:

Thank you very much for pointing this out.

 

Authors very much appreciated the encouraging, critical, and constructive comments on this manuscript by the Reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript.

We would like to thank the Reviewer again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

 

Kind regards,

Andrei BIŢĂ, PhD

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Previous reviews noted that the content of this work is limited in its standardization of the ethanolic extract of Galeopsis tetrahit leaves based on verbascoside. Although it is a new qualitative study in the field of qualitative analysis for this plant species, its results are confined to qualitative analysis based on verbascoside. No other qualitative analytical evaluation is included to make the article comprehensive, especially since the plant's antioxidant activity was already known. The question was whether other analytical studies could be added to it to create a full article. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First of all, we would like to address you many thanks for your accurate observations and valuable comments. We used all these and improved the paper accordingly.

All changes in the revised manuscript were highlighted on a yellow background.

The following changes have been made to the Manuscript (ID: plants-4087077):

Reviewer #2 questions/comments

Comments 1:

Previous reviews noted that the content of this work is limited in its standardization of the ethanolic extract of Galeopsis tetrahit leaves based on verbascoside. Although it is a new qualitative study in the field of qualitative analysis for this plant species, its results are confined to qualitative analysis based on verbascoside. No other qualitative analytical evaluation is included to make the article comprehensive, especially since the plant’s antioxidant activity was already known. The question was whether other analytical studies could be added to it to create a full article.

Response 1:

Thank you very much for your helpful suggestion.

The present study is not a qualitative investigation, but a quantitative analytical standardization study. Verbascoside was not merely identified but quantified using a fully validated UHPLC–PDA method compliant with ICH Q2(R2), including assessment of linearity, accuracy, precision, specificity, sensitivity (LOD/LOQ), system suitability, and application to extract standardization. These elements go beyond qualitative analysis and constitute a regulatory-grade quantitative framework. (See “2. Results” and “3. Discussion” sections).

In herbal quality control, standardization is commonly performed using a single, well-characterized marker compound that is abundant, bioactive, and analytically robust. Verbascoside fulfills these criteria in G. tetrahit leaves, as demonstrated by its high concentration and its dominant contribution to antioxidant activity. The aim of this work was therefore not broad phytochemical profiling, but marker-based standardization, which represents a distinct and well-established analytical objective. (See page 3, lines 113–122).

Additional qualitative or multi-marker analyses (e.g., extended metabolite profiling or fingerprinting) would constitute a different study with a different scope, rather than a necessary extension of the present work. Such investigations represent logical future applications of the validated method but are not required to establish an initial standardization protocol.

Accordingly, the article is comprehensive within its clearly defined scope and provides the first validated quantitative standardization framework for G. tetrahit leaf extract.

Comments 2:

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

Response 2:

Thank you very much for pointing this out. The English language has been improved to more clearly express the research.

Authors very much appreciated the encouraging, critical, and constructive comments on this manuscript by the Reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript.

We would like to thank the Reviewer again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

Kind regards,

Andrei BIŢĂ, PhD

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 4

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the previous reviews, we noted that Galeopsis tetrahit  is well-known for its antioxidant activity and its chemical composition, particularly verbascoside and phenols (qualitative analysis), is well-established. Therefore, this work provides limited results regarding the quantitative analysis for the standardization  of verbascoside  in the ethanol extract of the leaves of the plant. There is no further new qualitative or quantitative analysis, nor is there any other new bilogical tests. The question remains whether this very limited work about standardisation of verbascoside by UHPLC–PDA is suitable as a full article or merely a short report; we leave the decision to the editor.