Nanotechnology-Enhanced Cosmetic Application of Kojic Acid Dipalmitate, a Kojic Acid Derivate with Improved Properties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review presented by the authors is relevant in the field. Here, I give my suggestions and comments.

1.    The title does not correspond to the emphasis of the information presented. I suggest changing the title to the most relevant information (nanoformulations).

2.    The authors are giving too much importance to the nanoformulations, and this is not stated in the title, abstract, and introduction sections. I suggest including this information in such sections.

3.    In Section 2. Sythesis of Kojic Acid Dipalmitate: There is no correct reference to Figure 1. Did the authors create the figure? Which program or app did they use? Is it a modification of another article?

4.    In Section 3. I suggest including a table to summarize the described properties of KDP.

5.    In section 4, Figure 2 must be improved to make it clearer. The figure legend does not include information about the green arrows. What do they indicate? Besides, there is no reference to the figure, the same as comment number 3. Please include the way you created the image.

6.    I suggest including more recent references. For example: Lokman Hakim, N. Y. D., Joginder Singh, H. K., Kang Nien, H., Siau Hui, M., & Zee Wei, L. (2023). Kojic Acid and Kojic Acid Ester: Review on Nanotechnology-based Approach for Enhancing the Delivery Efficacy. Recent Advances in Drug Delivery and Formulation: Formerly Recent Patents on Drug Delivery & Formulation, 17(2), 90-101.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

All of the comments are attached as a file.

Need more relevant citations since certain subtopics do not meet enough review.

The title itself shows the comprehensive review, but lack somewhere in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed the suggested changes to the review, the presented information is clearer and better organized. I consider the work will be helpful for the community in the field

I suggest reviewing the minor mistakes in the English language by inviting a native speaker to edit the manuscript. In general, the English language is well used.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision has been done intensively. All of the previous comments are revised.