An Integrated Approach to Control the Penetration Depth of 3D-Printed Hollow Microneedles
, Maya Bree Matheny, Mary Margaret Dubus, Lily Marie Eribes and Maryam Mobed-Miremadi *
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article presents a study on the design and validation of 3D-printed hollow microneedles (HMN) for minimally invasive therapies and monitoring systems. The impact of the study is high; however, some areas could be improved:
1. The article jumps straight into the technical details without providing sufficient background or context. This makes it difficult for readers who are not familiar with the field to understand the significance of the research. The storyline of the Introduction is unclear.
2. There are too many charts, too complex, and there is a need for systematic organization. In the results section, it is recommended that the authors provide detailed descriptions for each figure.
3. The discussion section does not adequately address the implications of the research. The authors need to discuss how their findings contribute to the field and what future research could be conducted based on their work.
4. In its current form, I would recommend major revisions before the paper is ready for publication. The authors need to address these issues to improve the quality and impact of their research.
As mentioned above.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is interesting piece of research. I am suggesting some minor revisions.
1. Introduction of basic microneedle technology and 3-D printing will make it more reader friendly. You can refer following article
https://doi.org/10.3390/scipharm91020027
2. Statistical data (t-test results) are missing
3. State the novelty of research and importance of control on penetration depth
4. State the rational behind use of stereolithography as fabrication technique
5. Is there any fabrication material specific effect on penetration depth?
1. Figures (specifically graphs) needs improved resolution.
2. Rectification of minor grammatical errors is required.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment"
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has made changes based on my suggestions. Now the quality of the article has been improved.
The author has made changes based on my suggestions. Now the quality of the article has been improved.
Reviewer 2 Report
All comments are well addressed by the author
Minor English language editing is required
