The Historical Role of Wormwood and Absinthe in Infectious Diseases: A Narrative Review and Future Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Presented work is interesting and written in good narrative form. The topic of this review is current as the historical knowledge is important source of data for development of novel plant-based products with good potential in treatment of infectious diseases. However, some minor revisions should be done to improve quality of the manuscript. The manuscript can be accepted for publication in this Sci journal after addressing some minor shortcomings:

- Italics is missing in scientific name “Artemisia absinthium” in line 243.

- Data on the historical and current production and consumption of absinth should be included in the manuscript.

- Information on the cultivation of Artemisia absinthium should be included in the text. Please specify whether the plant material was historically collected from wild populations or obtained from cultivated sources, and describe the current sourcing.

- The manuscript would benefit from the table summarizing the available data on the biological activities of Artemisia absinthium extracts and essential oils, which would facilitate comparison and highlight key findings.

- Relevant clinical studies on the effects of A. absinthium products - absinth, extracts, and essential oil,s should be incorporated into the manuscript.

- Information on toxicity and side effects of absinth consumption should be described in more detail.

Author Response

See attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is an interesting and relevant topic, but the manuscript, in its current state, has to undergo major change before it can be published.

(1) Currently, the manuscript is trying to address two different issues together: the historical and cultural dimensions of absinthe as an alcoholic drink, and the pharmacological actions of the absinthe wormwood extracts. It would be better to separate these entirely for the sake of clarity and to avoid overinterpretation and the suggestion of therapeutic equivalence.

(2) In the case of a narrative review, there should be a succinct and clear account of how the literature was searched for and chose. Please add a methods section in which you describe the search strategy, databases that were used, keywords, and general inclusion criteria.

(3) The descriptions on the antimicrobial and the antiparasitic activities contain generalizations and lack quantitative attributes, particularly the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and descriptions of the experimental models and preparation methods. The clarity of your text would be enhanced by a summary table that captured the organism, extract used, dose or concentration, and key outcomes.

(4) The part on safety and toxicity, especially the thujone mass and thujone regulations, as it is, is too brief. It is necessary to expand this view to bring into balance the historical anecdotes with the modern clinical and regulatory frameworks.

(5) For a narrative review that is exploring the history, ethnobotany, pharmacology, and regulations, the number of references is low (~32). I would suggest increasing the references to about more than 100 preferably a mix of primary historical materials, pharmacognosy, and contemporary pharmacology/toxicology.

(6) The images need to be texted. Some of the images may have been adapted from historical or botanical outside sources or obtained from manuscripts not specifying the sources, licenses, or permissions. MDPI requires specific source and license statements (e.g. Public Domain, CC-BY, or permissions obtained). Also, the resolution of figures 1 and 3 seems too low to be published and should be replaced by high resolution figures.

In addition, the current group of figures does not properly distinguish absinthe as an alcoholic beverage from Artemisia absinthium as the pharmacologically studied extract. A new schematic figure illustrating the (a) historical use of absinthe, (b) Artemisia extracts and (c) modern formulations (e.g. nanoemulsions, liposomes) would greatly help clarify the conceptual difference and prevent misinterpretation.

(7) The conclusion is rather strong. One would think absinthe and not the Artemisia extracts is the main focus of the preclinical discussion.

The manuscript would be relevant, but it needs to be restructured more distinctly and provide more evidence and documentation to support the narrative review.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the comprehensibility of the English language is satisfactory. That said, some sentences could be developed further by integrating more appropriate academic styles, eliminating colloquial language, and achieving better uniformity of terms throughout the manuscript (especially the differentiation of absinthe and Artemisia absinthium). For clarity and accuracy, I suggest an adjustment of the language on the lighter side of the spectrum.

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors positively worked on the comments. The manuscript is suitable for publication in the present from.