Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

Your manuscript entitled "Hancornia speciosa Gomes: Scientific and technical analysis" is a review of scientific works that have been published in the last period of time related to the plant in question.

 

The idea behind this manuscript is good, the document is clearly structured, and all relevant databases and repositories are used. Figures and tables are of high quality and well-formed.

What stands out as a shortcoming after reading the entire paper is the lack of or complete lack of discussion and analysis of the data you have come up with. Namely, the almost complete text in the Results and Discussion section mainly refers to the reproduction of images and/or tables in textual form. There is not a lot of comparison of the results, what are the similarities, what are the differences, whether it is the same or similar procedures for obtaining samples, where the sample comes from, and so on.

 

In one part, you say that "Of the 182 original research articles utilized in this review", however, the number of references you cite is significantly smaller. It's illogical.

Also, in the tables themselves, when you list the references, you do not list their serial number.

In addition, any patents you cite must be listed in the reference list.

The conclusion is full of generalities and I think it could be significantly improved.

 

Technically speaking, H. speciosa Gomes can only be written as H. speciosa.

In vitro and in vivo should be italicized.

Figure 3 should be without margins.

Figure 5 should also be without lines (now it looks like a table).

 

The English is quite good and there is no need for improvement.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Comment 1: What stands out as a shortcoming after reading the entire paper is the lack of or complete lack of discussion and analysis of the data you have come up with. Namely, the almost complete text in the Results and Discussion section mainly refers to the reproduction of images and/or tables in textual form. There is not a lot of comparison of the results, what are the similarities, what are the differences, whether it is the same or similar procedures for obtaining samples, where the sample comes from, and so on.

Response 1: The document has been updated in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations, Page 9, line 162-176;  page 10, line 236-247; page 10, line 286-292; page 12, line 347-349.

 

Comment 2: In one part, you say that "Of the 182 original research articles utilized in this review", however, the number of references you cite is significantly smaller. It's illogical.

Response 2: All these articles were identified during the bibliometric analysis, but not all of them were used to construct the review. This information has been rewritten in the text to make it clearer.

Comment 3: Also, in the tables themselves, when you list the references, you do not list their serial number.

Response 3: The document has been updated in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations.

 Comment 4: In addition, any patents you cite must be listed in the reference list.

Response 4: The document has been updated in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations page 17 and 18.

Comment5: The conclusion is full of generalities and I think it could be significantly improved.

Response 5: The document has been updated in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations

 

Comment6: Technically speaking, H. speciosa Gomes can only be written as H. speciosa.

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We note that most of the primary literature and patents working with this species use the name H. speciosa Gomes. However, respecting the reviewer’s comment, we have revised the manuscript to use the full name (H. speciosa Gomes) only in the title, at its first mention in the text, and in the references to articles and patents. In all subsequent mentions throughout the manuscript, we now refer to the species simply as H. speciosa, in accordance with standard taxonomic conventions.

Comment7: In vitro and in vivo should be italicized.

Response 7: The document has been updated in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations. Page 9, line 182, 187, 203; Page 10, line 219, 238; Page 11, line 270; Page 12, line 341; Page 15, line 393

Comment8: Figure 3 should be without margins.

Response 8: The Figure 3 has been updated in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations. Page 3

Comment 9: Figure 5 should also be without lines (now it looks like a table).

Response 9: The figure 5 has been updated in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations. Page 15

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the title should be optimized. At present, it is too general and does not clearly reflect the essence of the review.
Please discuss what your review adds or offers that is new or different compared to recent publications on Hancornia speciosa, namely:

• Morais G.C., Resende R.T., Chaves L.J. (2022). Improve for better use: exploitation potential, advances and gaps in the conservation and breeding of Hancornia speciosa — A review. Tree Dimensional Journal, Vol. IX, e022005, 1–13. DOI:10.55746/treed.2022.09.005

• Nunes, V.V., Silva-Mann, R., Souza, J.L. et al. (2022). Pharmaceutical, food potential, and molecular data of Hancornia speciosa Gomes: a systematic review. Genet Resour Crop Evol 69, 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-021-01319-w

• Almeida, L.M.D., Nogueira, C.A., Borges, P.P., Prado, A.D.L.D., & Gonçalves, P.J. (2016). State of the art of scientific literature on Hancornia speciosa: Trends and gaps. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 38(4), e-869. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452016869

In addition, please optimize the title of Table 1. The references listed in Tables 1 and 2 should be formatted according to the journal’s style.
All compounds presented in the review should be assigned unique numbers, which must be consistently cited in the discussion section.

Author Response

Comment 1: In my opinion, the title should be optimized. At present, it is too general and does not clearly reflect the essence of the review.

Response 1: The title of the article has been updated in accordance with the reviewer’s recommendation. Page 1

 

Comment 2: Please discuss what your review adds or offers that is new or different compared to recent publications on Hancornia speciosa, namely:

• Morais G.C., Resende R.T., Chaves L.J. (2022). Improve for better use: exploitation potential, advances and gaps in the conservation and breeding of Hancornia speciosa — A review. Tree Dimensional Journal, Vol. IX, e022005, 1–13. DOI:10.55746/treed.2022.09.005
• Nunes, V.V., Silva-Mann, R., Souza, J.L. et al. (2022). Pharmaceutical, food potential, and molecular data of Hancornia speciosa Gomes: a systematic review. Genet Resour Crop Evol 69, 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-021-01319-w
• Almeida, L.M.D., Nogueira, C.A., Borges, P.P., Prado, A.D.L.D., & Gonçalves, P.J. (2016). State of the art of scientific literature on Hancornia speciosa: Trends and gaps. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 38(4), e-869. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452016869

Response 2: The discussion has been updated in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations. Page 4,  line 115-140

 

Comment 3: In addition, please optimize the title of Table 1. The references listed in Tables 1 and 2 should be formatted according to the journal’s style.

Response 3: The document has been updated in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations.

Comment 4: All compounds presented in the review should be assigned unique numbers, which must be consistently cited in the discussion section.

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to assign unique numbers to all compounds. After careful consideration, we decided not to include numbering because it would result in a text and tables heavily polluted with numbers, which could be confusing for readers—particularly since reference citations are also numerical. Instead, we chose to clearly present the compounds in well-organized tables and consistently refer to them by name in the text. This approach maintains clarity while avoiding potential confusion between compound numbers and reference numbers.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript offers a complex perspective of the use of Hancornia speciosa Gomes in different directions with a major impact on the quality of life. The potential offered by Hancornia speciosa Gomes is very high, as is evident from the presentation of the main studies in which the authors present them. However, studies are required for the future that synthesize the particular conditions regarding the preparation of the raw material in order to extract valuable components for different fields of use, the combination of technologies applied for a complex valorization of useful compounds, etc. However, a clearer presentation of the main scientific and technical ideas is required in the Conclusions chapter.

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript offers a complex perspective of the use of Hancornia speciosa Gomes in different directions with a major impact on the quality of life. The potential offered by Hancornia speciosa Gomes is very high, as is evident from the presentation of the main studies in which the authors present them. However, studies are required for the future that synthesize the particular conditions regarding the preparation of the raw material in order to extract valuable components for different fields of use, the combination of technologies applied for a complex valorization of useful compounds, etc. However, a clearer presentation of the main scientific and technical ideas is required in the Conclusions chapter.

Response 1: The conclusion section has been updated in accordance with the reviewer's recommendations. Page 19, line 465-482.