Essential Oils in Respiratory Mycosis: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
line 14: comma before “bearing”
line 18: antifungal, not antifungals
line 23: mycoses, not mycosis
line 35-36: remove “when considering invasive fungal infections”
line 42: comma after and”
line 44: ”at” instead of ”an”
line 47: ”and” before ”sporotrichosis”
line 51: “Aspergillus, …….being” (change order)
line 62: comma before “that”
line 64: no comma before “include”
line 83: ”Scholar” with upper case
line 120: comma before “namely”
line 121: comma after “methods”
line 128: comma before “that”
line 139-140: “being” moved after “drug”
line 189: “being” moved after “criteria”
line 211: “oils” before “of”
line 212: “being” moved after “oil”
line 229: ”both” instead of ”bot”
line 235: “strikingly” moved after “was”
line 248: comma after “oils”
line 264: “fungus” instead of “fungi”
line 278: ”Table 2” with upper case
line 288: comma before “contrarily”
line 291: comma after “species”
line 292: “being” moved after “pathogens”
line 293: comma before “mainly”
line 298: in the table, on columns “Main compounds” and “Antifungal effect” remove commas and semicolon from end of cell
line 319: comma before “with”
line 323: comma before “through”
line 345: ”Thapsia villosa” is written with a smaller font
line 346: ”other”, not “nother”
line 349: ”extent”, not extend
line 356: comma before “although”
line 356: ”extent”, not extend
line 374: ”extent”, not extend
line 375: comma before “such”
line 376: comma before “against”
line 386: comma before “in”
line 406: no comma before “highly”
line 427: “Thymus” with upper case
line 431: comma before “namely”
line 432: comma before “are”
line 438: comma before “have”
line 450-451: the volatiles being (change order)
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We truly acknowledge the careful review of our manuscript since it allowed us to improve its quality and accuracy. Indeed, the majority of the suggestions were considered and included in the manuscript (with track changes). Nevertheless, for a few suggestions, a rebuttal is provided below explaining why they were not considered:
line 14: comma before “bearing”
We appreciate the suggestion but a comma before ‘bearing’ divides the sentence and interferes with its interpretation. Therefore, we consider that it should not be included.
line 18: antifungal, not antifungals
Thank you for the suggestion but we do mean antifungals. If we change to antifungal, it will need to be antifungal drugs, so the meaning is not altered.
line 44: ”at” instead of ”an”
Thank you for the suggestion but this alteration modifies the meaning of the sentence.
line 62: comma before “that”
Thank you for the suggestion but a comma is not needed in this case.
line 128: comma before “that”
Thank you for the suggestion but a comma is not needed in this case.
line 139-140, 189, 450-451: “being” moved
We appreciate the suggestions but in these cases we think that the position of ‘being’ in the sentence is correct. If the reviewer agrees would not modify these sentences.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript describes the Essential oils in Respiratory Mycosis: a review. The manuscript is interesting and I believe it should be published in this journal.
-No indication of the aim of the reviw in the abstract, please add the goal of your research strightly.
-In conclusion, abstract needs to be presented in better way. The optimal will be to rewrite entire abstract and structured it in way that will be sound logic, summarize the content of the paper and do not generate misunderstandings.
-Keywords are very general and not really correspond to the scientific objective of the paper.
The authors said (The present review provides an up-81 dated compilation of the studies performed in the last 20 years based on a bibliographic 82 search conducted using Pubmed, Scopus and Google scholar database), I did not see any aims either in the introduction or abstract. It has to have clear objectives. Also, as I mentioned in my report, conclusion needs to be revised, and pay more attention to innovations in this research and conclusion needs to be rewritten again in order to match the objectives.
Author Response
We appreciate the suggestions and commentaries provided by the reviewer and agree that both the abstract and conclusions of the manuscript could benefit with a better explanation of the objectives and overall findings, respectively. We have rephrased the abstract and clearly pointed out the aim of the review, summarized its content avoiding misunderstandings. Also, the conclusions were rewritten to match the objectives and a special focus was given to innovative aspects. Both modifications are highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.
