Pharmaceutical Packaging Materials and Medication Safety: A Mini-Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read with interest the paper titled "Pharmaceutical Packaging Materials and Medication Safety: A Mini-Review"

1. Abstract is expected to be developed in accordance with the journal guidelines. 

2. A section of methods explaining the methodology behind the review is expected. 

3. The aim of the review is expected to be stated in the end of the background. 

4. Where is ref 72 cited in the manuscript' Ref 71 is in line 273 and 73 in line 282, but missed the 72. 

5. This is a review paper. In the tables is expected to add the references from where data was extracted. 

6. Limitations of the review should be stated. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The mini-review submitted to the Safety MDPI journal covers a topic of interest as it describes the use of synthetic or biodegradable packaging systems used in the clinical and pharmaceutical sectors. The topic addressed is very important as these materials deal with humans. The authors have covered the topic well. However, they do not report on migration tests regarding the migrants using simulated systems. It is a critical issue that must be addressed.

In addition, through the text, there is a considerable number of technical or grammar errors. I have indicated these issues within the attached pdf. Figures are very good. A graphical abstract indicating also the hypothesis of the study could also be added.

Based on the overall quality of this paper, I suggest a minor revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language can be improved. Some words need replacement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the reviewed article with great interest. The authors address a timely and important topic that is highly relevant to pharmaceutical sciences and drug safety.

The manuscript is well-structured. The individual sections of the paper (introduction, material classification, impact on medication safety, review of standards and modern solutions) are logically organized. Each section begins with clear contextualization, ends with a concise summary, and includes numerous references, which ensures clarity and comprehensiveness.

The content is aligned with the current state of knowledge. The citations are extensive and up to date. All key claims are well-supported, and potential technological risks are backed by literature and practical examples.

The reference base is robust, encompassing both the chemical and physical foundations of materials as well as specific case studies. The article also cites normative acts and international pharmacopeias, which strengthens its scientific and practical value.

However, in order to meet the standards of scientific transparency and academic rigor, even within a mini-review format, several clarifications and additions are required.

The introduction contains relevant background information, but it does not conclude with a clearly stated aim of the review. According to academic conventions, the final paragraph of the introduction should clearly define the objective, scope, and target audience of the paper.

The article does not describe how the literature was selected (dates, databases, keywords). This limits the transparency of the review. Even in a mini-review, general principles of literature selection and thematic scope should be presented.

The manuscript does not address any limitations, which contradicts good academic practice. The authors do not mention possible gaps in the literature, nor limitations related to the scope or methodology of the review.

Despite the interesting overview of emerging packaging materials, the paper lacks clearly articulated practical implications and fails to indicate how the presented findings relate to future research directions. While future-oriented suggestions are included (e.g., smart packaging), the authors do not specify who their recommendations are intended for (e.g., regulators, the pharmaceutical industry, researchers), what actions packaging designers or manufacturers should take, or what theoretical implications should be drawn (e.g., which data are missing, what should be investigated next, such as validating packaging performance in real-life conditions).

Following the recommended revisions, the abstract should also be updated. The current version does not clearly state the aim of the paper, does not define the type of review conducted, nor does it indicate the target audience for the findings.

In conclusion, the manuscript has the potential to contribute meaningfully to the literature, but it requires substantial revision in terms of structure, clarity of purpose, methodology, and implications. I encourage the authors to implement the suggestions above, which will significantly enhance the scientific quality of the article.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments, please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript was improved by the authors, no further comments to add. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have followed my comments and improved their manuscript. Acceptance  of the manuscript  is now suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors revised the manuscript in accordance with my comments. Thank you, and I accept the new version.