Research on Technology of Medicinal Functional Food
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript ID: "processes-1807934" is "Review", not "Article".
I made myself some suggestions/corrections in the attached manuscript. Authors must pay attention to the yellow highlighted words/sentences.
Briefly, I suggested the following:
Line 36: Replace "using" by "used".
Lines 50-51; 144-146; 172-174: Reformulate these sentences.
Lines 58-59: Authors must explain the printing method, and they must give more examples of printing.
Lines 59-60: Please leave a space between the lines 59 and 60.
Line 73: Replace "," with "."
Lines 86 & 88: Abbreviations must be detailed at the first appearance in text (e.g., DHA, IPA).
Line 87: A space is required between the numerical value and the unit of measurement. Please check throughout the text.
Line 102: Replace "shaving" with "having".
Line 148: Replace "cogeling" with "congealing".
Line 166: Specify the study.
Line 183: Replace "mircrocapsule" with "microcapsule".
Line 197: Replace "branulation" with "granulation".
Line 201: Replace "was" with "were".
Line 215: Explain " unintelligent parcel".
Line 228: Table 2: Revise the yellow highlighted words.
Line 239: In the text, the authors did not specify anything about such coating for special cases, such as people with diabetes. Authors should insert such examples in the text and include the corresponding bibliography.
Given that this manuscript is not an article, but a review, the authors must specify the source of the figures used. If the figures were taken from other articles, the authors must have the consent of those journals.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, the manuscript is a “Review”, not an “Article”.
And, second, I recommend rejecting the manuscript because it does not fit the Section “Food Processes” or the Special Issue “Exploitation and Utilization of Starch Resources in Food” to which it was submitted.
This manuscript does not mention food or functional food at all, nor the use of starch resources in food.
Although the title refers to "food coatings", the manuscript mentions various methods of coating particles that contain mainly pharmaceutical ingredients, such as antibiotics (Sparfloxacin, Amoxycillin trihydrate, Linezolid, Levofloxacin, and many more) or anti-inflammatory products (ibuprofen, indomethacin).
And the starch was mentioned only once (!) in the entire manuscript, as an active ingredient of coated particles.
So, I don't think the present manuscript fits at all with the section or special issue in which was submitted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I made myself some suggestions/corrections in the attached manuscript. Authors must pay attention to the yellow highlighted words/sentences.
I suggested the following:
Lines 186-187: Replace: "is a method commonly used at present." with "and it is a method commonly used at present."
Line 193: Replace "micron" with "µm".
Line 253, Table 2: Replace "controlled-bility" with "controllability".
Given that this manuscript is a review, the authors must specify the source of the figures used!!! If the figures were taken from other articles, the authors must have the consent of those journals!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I appreciate the fact that the authors changed the title of the paper, in order to better fit its content. They also made considerable improvements to the entire manuscript, in accordance with the requirements of the reviewers. Thus, the manuscript can be approved for publication in the present form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
