Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors should avoid repeating sentences “such as apoptosis induction,” and “Menthol has demonstrated promising anticancer activity by inducing apoptosis” at line 39 and 43.

Authors should avoid using general photos with non-scientific references such as Figure 2 from “Wikipedia” given in reference 11.

Introduction is weak. It does not explain why this study is needed.

Methods part should be improved. IPC codes and other details should be given in methods.

More statistical analysis such as year by year distribution should be given. Just giving patent numbers is not a statistical analysis. The “common words” used in patents should be analyzed and classified.

Discussions should be improved. It is just sharing collected data. Interesting and future applications should be discussed.

Reference number is low for this kind of study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor revision

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and expertise in commenting on the manuscript. We have made the requested modifications and corrections to the revised manuscript to address all concerns and proposed suggestions.

 

Comment No. 1. Authors should avoid repeating sentences “such as apoptosis induction,” and “Menthol has demonstrated promising anticancer activity by inducing apoptosis” at line 39 and 43.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing out the redundancy in our text. We have revised the section to streamline the information, eliminating repetitive phrases while ensuring that the key points about menthol's mechanisms of action and its potential as an anticancer agent are presented clearly and cohesively. (Page 1 Line 38)

 

Comment No. 2. Authors should avoid using general photos with non-scientific references such as Figure 2 from “Wikipedia” given in reference 11.

Response 2: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We acknowledge the importance of using scientifically credible references for figures. Reference of Photo in Figure 2 has been replaced with a scientifically sourced illustration, ensuring that all visuals are properly cited and contribute to the scientific rigor of the manuscript.

 

Comment No. 3. Introduction is weak. It does not explain why this study is needed.

Response 3: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the introduction to emphasize the need for this study. The updated text highlights the industrial significance of menthol, the growing interest in plant-derived alternatives, and the lack of comprehensive patent analysis as the motivation for conducting this research. (Page 1 Line 30, Page 2 Line 20)

 

Comment No. 4. Methods part should be improved. IPC codes and other details should be given in methods.

Response 4: Thank you for your feedback. We have expanded the methods section to include details about the IPC codes and the approach used for classifying and analyzing patent documents. This addition provides clarity and strengthens the methodological framework of the study. (Page 3 Lines 1)

 

Comment No. 5. More statistical analysis such as year by year distribution should be given. Just giving patent numbers is not a statistical analysis. The “common words” used in patents should be analyzed and classified.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. While we acknowledge the value of including a year-by-year distribution analysis and a detailed classification of common words used in patents, the limited page allowance for this proceedings paper makes it challenging to incorporate such extensive analysis. However, we recognize the importance of this information and plan to address these aspects in greater depth in a future full-length article, where we can provide a more comprehensive statistical analysis. We appreciate your understanding and consideration in this matter. Finally, it should be noted that the limited scope of this proceedings paper, as well as the perspective of this study, are now highlighted in the "conclusion" section. (Page 7 Lines 41)

 

Comment No. 6. Discussions should be improved. It is just sharing collected data. Interesting and future applications should be discussed.

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the discussion to present the key findings, ensuring a clear and comprehensive analysis of menthol's applications across therapeutic, cosmetic, and drug delivery domains. The proposed section also highlights trends such as its combination with natural compounds to enhance its functionality. We hope these revisions address your concerns and improve the overall clarity of the discussion.

 

Comment No. 7. Reference number is low for this kind of study.

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge the importance of providing comprehensive references for this type of study. Despite the limitation imposed by the page count for this proceedings paper, we have added 2 key references to strengthen the manuscript and highlight new advancements relevant to our study. Now this proceedings paper counts 32 references. We hope these additions address your concerns and enhance the overall quality of the paper. (References [2] and [11])

2. Flood, T.R. Menthol Use for Performance in Hot Environments. Current Sports Medicine Reports 2018, 17, 135-139, doi:10.1249/jsr.0000000000000474.
3. Dylong, D.; Hausoul, P.J.C.; Palkovits, R.; Eisenacher, M. Synthesis of (−)-menthol: Industrial synthesis routes and recent development. Flavour and Fragrance Journal 2022, 37, 195-209, doi:10.1002/ffj.3699.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of my review requests were addressed. The manuscript can be accepted. A short discussion on the menthol derivatives, possible reactions such as degradation mechanism can be added with citation. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor improvements can be made.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments – Round 2

 

Comment No. 1. Most of my review requests were addressed. The manuscript can be accepted.

Response 1: Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your feedback and your time and expertise in commenting on the revised manuscript. We have made the requested modifications and corrections to the revised manuscript to address all concerns and proposed suggestions.

 

Comment No. 2. A short discussion on the menthol derivatives, possible reactions such as degradation mechanism can be added with citation. 

Response 2: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We acknowledge the importance of discussion on the menthol derivatives and the possible reactions, such as degradation mechanism. We have revised the introduction to clarify this information (Page 1, Lines 36-44). Further, we have added 4 key references to strengthen the manuscript and highlight new advancements relevant to our study (References [2], [3], [5], and [6]):

2. Cattaruzza, F.; Fares, V.; Flamini, A.; Prosperi, T. Synthesis of enantiomeric menthol derivatives for forming and probing chiral surfaces. X-ray crystal and molecular structures of (+)-(1S,2R,5S)-1-(2-tricyanovinyl-1H-pyrrol-1-yl-methoxy)-2-isopropyl-5-methylcyclohexane. Tetrahedron: Asymmetry 2006, 17, 1296-1300, doi:10.1016/j.tetasy.2006.04.016.
3. Mi, Y.; Xing, F.; Zhou, X.a.; Xu, Y.; Jiang, B. Menthol derivatives, mixture thereof, and preparation method and applications of menthol derivatives. Patent Application: CN108610257A, China, October 2, 2018.
4. Mano Priya, A.; Aazaad, B. Mechanism and kinetics of atmospheric degradation of menthol initiated by hydroxyl radical. New Journal of Chemistry 2023, 47, 21490-21498, doi:10.1039/d3nj04621d.
5. Yoo, J.W.; Kim, D.H.; Moon, S.J.; Noh, M.S.; Kim, S.H.; An, S.S.; Lee, J.S. Menthol derivatives and process for preparing the same. Granted Patent: US6566545B2, United States, May 20, 2003.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx