Phytochemical Screening and Antioxidant Potential of Selected Extracts from Betula alba var. pendula Roth., Glycyrrhiza glabra L., and Avena sativa L.
, Veronica Drumea 2, Alina Moroșan 3,*, Dan Eduard Mihaiescu 3, Liliana Costea 1,*, Emanuela Alice Luță 1,†, Dragos Paul Mihai 1,*, Dalila Teodora Balaci 1, Ancuța Cătălina Fița 1, Octavian Tudorel Olaru 1,‡, Rica Boscencu 1,‡ and Cerasela Elena Gîrd 1,‡
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled Phytochemical screening and antioxidant potential of selected extracts from Betula alba var. pendula Roth., Glycyrrhiza glabra L and Avena sativa L.is very good scientifically and very rich in research documentation.In the references section, the citation of titles should be unified, sometimes they are quoted with a capital letter and sometimes with a lowercase letter. The manuscript brings new knowledge and with minor corrections it should be published. Plant extracts are a potential source of new drugs, therefore knowledge about them should be expanded.
Author Response
To Plants Editorial Board, The authors would like to thank the Editors for processing our manuscript and for analyzing the reviewers’ feedback. We prepared a point-by-point response letter to reviewers. Corrections were highlighted in the manuscript.
Reviewer 1
The manuscript entitled Phytochemical screening and antioxidant potential of selected extracts from Betula alba var. pendula Roth., Glycyrrhiza glabra L and Avena sativa L.is very good scientifically and very rich in research documentation.
R: We would like to thank the reviewer for carefully analyzing our paper and for appreciating our work. Corrections were highlighted in the manuscript. Please see the revised version of the paper.
In the references section, the citation of titles should be unified, sometimes they are quoted with a capital letter and sometimes with a lowercase letter.
R: We would like to thank the reviewer for the recommendation. We have modified the citations titles, changing the capital letter with lowercase letter, where appropriate.
The manuscript brings new knowledge and with minor corrections it should be published. Plant extracts are a potential source of new drugs, therefore knowledge about them should be expanded.
R: The authors appreciate the reviewer’s positive feedback and his support for research in the field of medicinal plants.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript ‘Phytochemical screening and antioxidant potential of selected 2 extracts from Betula alba var. pendula Roth., Glycyrrhiza glabra 3 L and Avena sativa L.’ is a multi-author work presenting detailed analysis of the tested extracts.
The study appears to be performed with care. The experiments were adequately performed and presented and the results were interpreted appropriately. Therefore, this manuscript is interesting, scientifically justified, well-written and detailed. However, several issues (shown below) need to be resolved to improve the quality of the work presented.
Descriptions of individual peaks in the presented chromatograms are not legible, what should be corrected.
Some minor typographical and grammatical errors in the manuscript should be checked and corrected.
In connection with the presented properties of the extracts, it seems reasonable to analyze the antibacterial and antifungal activity of the tested extracts.
Author Response
To Plants Editorial Board,
The authors would like to thank the Editors for processing our manuscript and for analyzing the reviewers’ feedback. We prepared a point-by-point response letter to reviewers. Corrections were highlighted in the manuscript.
Reviewer 2
The manuscript ‘Phytochemical screening and antioxidant potential of selected 2 extracts from Betula alba var. pendula Roth., Glycyrrhiza glabra 3 L and Avena sativa L.’ is a multi-author work presenting detailed analysis of the tested extracts.
The study appears to be performed with care. The experiments were adequately performed and presented and the results were interpreted appropriately. Therefore, this manuscript is interesting, scientifically justified, well-written and detailed. However, several issues (shown below) need to be resolved to improve the quality of the work presented.
R: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for carefully analyzing our work and for his valuable feedback. Corrections were highlighted in the manuscript. Please see the revised version of the paper.
Descriptions of individual peaks in the presented chromatograms are not legible, what should be corrected.
R: We would like to thank the reviewer for the recommendation. We reprocessed the chromatograms obtained after the GC-MS analysis and adjusted the resolutions so that the notations would be legible, within the limits of the software. We hope that reprocessed chromatograms are more suitable (please see Figures 2-4).
Some minor typographical and grammatical errors in the manuscript should be checked and corrected.
R: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the recommendation. We have thoroughly checked the manuscript and corrected the errors. Revisions are highlighted throughout the text.
In connection with the presented properties of the extracts, it seems reasonable to analyze the antibacterial and antifungal activity of the tested extracts.
R: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestions. Indeed, some phytoconstituents detected in our extracts are known to exert antimicrobial, antifungal, and antiviral activities. We are taking into consideration the reviewer’s suggestion for a future paper in which we would discuss the antibacterial and antifungal activities in conjunction with cytotoxicity and ecotoxicity and other biological effects.
