Cannabinoids and Sleep: Exploring Biological Mechanisms and Therapeutic Potentials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the present review Authors addressed the current literature on the role of Cannabinoids on sleep regulation and the potential use in treating sleep disorders.
Major comments:
in its current form, the manuscript is very difficult to read and, in many parts, extremely confusing.
I suggest a subdivision into paragraphs with an introduction that highlights the aim of the review followed by:
a brief description of the endocannabinoid system.
role of the endocannabinoid system in the regulation of sleep (endocannabinoid and exogenous cannabinoid modulation);
At the end of this description, it will be important to highlight the potential use of for the treatment of sleep disorders.
Author Response
Rev1
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In the present review Authors addressed the current literature on the role of Cannabinoids on sleep regulation and the potential use in treating sleep disorders.
We are grateful for the time you spent reviewing our article and for the valuable advice you provided to improve it
Major comments:
in its current form, the manuscript is very difficult to read and, in many parts, extremely confusing.
I suggest a subdivision into paragraphs with an introduction that highlights the aim of the review followed by:
Thank you for your suggestion. We have substantially modified the manuscript, not only by dividing it into paragraphs but also by restructuring it differently:
Endocannabinoid system
Endocannabinoids and sleep
Phytocannabinoids and synthetic cannabinomimetics
N-acylethanolamides
Research into cannabinods and sleep
Conclusion
a brief description of the endocannabinoid system.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We dedicated the first paragraph on the argument. In addition to dedicating and implementing the first paragraph, we have expanded the sections concerning the endocannabinoid system in the various subsequent paragraphs.
role of the endocannabinoid system in the regulation of sleep (endocannabinoid and exogenous cannabinoid modulation);
Response: Thank you for your suggestion we highlighted it the paragraph “Endocannabinoids and sleep” describing both mechanism of action.
At the end of this description, it will be important to highlight the potential use of for the treatment of sleep disorders.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have done so by emphasizing the importance of both endogenous and synthetic cannabinoids as a significant pharmacological perspective, both in monotherapy as demonstrated by the studies cited in the previous paragraphs, and as add-on therapy, particularly palmitoylethanolamide.
Submission Date
08 February 2024
Date of this review
01 Mar 2024 11:38:52
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The article should be divided into paragraphs/section. Otherwise, some of information is repeated in the text, and consequently, it is hard to follow.
Obviously, the paper is submitted as an opinion, however, the Authors should try to to preserve the continuity of thought that is put down on paper
2. The manuscript should include both preclinical and clinical studies (detailed characterization and examples). Also, the Authors should focus on natural as well as synthetic compounds and should analyse them in depth in terms of potential mechanism of action, but also, if possible, demonstrate possible differences in the action of ligands
4. Please expand the abbreviation before its first use (e.g., AEA, 2-AG, OEA, etc.; line 32, 34, etc.)
Comments on the Quality of English Language
minor changes are required
Author Response
Rev2
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
(x) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
We appreciate the time you dedicated to reviewing our article and the invaluable advice you offered to enhance its quality.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- The article should be divided into paragraphs/section. Otherwise, some of information is repeated in the text, and consequently, it is hard to follow.
Thank you for your suggestion. We have substantially modified the manuscript. We have divided the opinion into paragraphs, and by structuring it accordingly, we have eliminated repetitions and typos. The division was intended to make the article's reading flow smoother:
Endocannabinoid system
Endocannabinoids and sleep
Phytocannabinoids and synthetic cannabinomimetics
N-acylethanolamides
Research into cannabinods and sleep
Conclusion
Obviously, the paper is submitted as an opinion, however, the Authors should try to to preserve the continuity of thought that is put down on paper
- The manuscript should include both preclinical and clinical studies (detailed characterization and examples). Also, the Authors should focus on natural as well as synthetic compounds and should analyse them in depth in terms of potential mechanism of action, but also, if possible, demonstrate possible differences in the action of ligands
Thank you for your suggestions; we have incorporated them. We have devoted a section to cannabinomimetics, analyzing their mechanism of action and citing preclinical and clinical studies in the paragraph titled "Research into Cannabinoids and Sleep."
- Please expand the abbreviation before its first use (e.g., AEA, 2-AG, OEA, etc.; line 32, 34, etc.)
Thank you for your suggestion, we have corrected it.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
minor changes are required
Thank You, we did it
Submission Date
08 February 2024
Date of this review
28 Feb 2024 10:59:14
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe opinion received for review entitled - Cannabinoids and Sleep: Exploring Biological Mechanisms and Therapeutic Potentials about a very popular phytocannabinoid in relation to sleep, in my opinion, although it contains a lot of interesting information, is written very incoherently. There are no specific sections marked, such as: Introduction.... summary. It lacks systematicity in issues that should also be bulleted or titled to make the work easy to understand. Unfortunately, it also lacks figures that would logically show the impact of phytocannabinoids - advantages and disadvantages on the course of sleep. The table on pages 11 and 12 is very illegible, it does not contain specific data, only a copy of the text in a shortened version.
Author Response
Rev3
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
Quality of English Language
(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The opinion received for review entitled - Cannabinoids and Sleep: Exploring Biological Mechanisms and Therapeutic Potentials about a very popular phytocannabinoid in relation to sleep, in my opinion, although it contains a lot of interesting information, is written very incoherently. There are no specific sections marked, such as: Introduction.... summary. It lacks systematicity in issues that should also be bulleted or titled to make the work easy to understand. Unfortunately, it also lacks figures that would logically show the impact of phytocannabinoids - advantages and disadvantages on the course of sleep. The table on pages 11 and 12 is very illegible, it does not contain specific data, only a copy of the text in a shortened version.
Response: Thank you for taking the time to review our article. As you will see, the manuscript has been substantially changed, and divided into sub-paragraphs to make the reading more coherent and fluid.
- Endocannabinoid system
- Endocannabinoids and sleep
- Phytocannabinoids and synthetic cannabinomimetics
- N-acylethanolamides
- Research into cannabinoids and sleep
- Conclusion
Furthermore, as you will read, we have decided, precisely due to the issue you raised, to insert a paragraph on "Phytocannabinoids and synthetic cannabinomimetics." The figure has been sent, but I believe it will be published as a graphical abstract. Regarding the table, since it is an opinion and not a review, we only wanted to summarize the studies and results cited in the study, and we have modified it.
Submission Date
08 February 2024
Date of this review
06 Mar 2024 09:20:02
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors improved the quality of the manuscript as requested
Author Response
Thank you so much for reviewing our manuscript and for the advice that helped improve it.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has now been improved. However, I suggest to provide the Authors' opinion about recent and possibly further studies on cannabinoids and sleep in depth. Since it is an opinion, the Authors should provide theirs attitude to the work already done by other researchers.
Are there any limitation which may be crucial for further studies in the opinion of the Authors?
Author Response
Thank you very much for the suggestion to comment on the work done so far, to formulate hypotheses for future research in the field of the effect of cannabinoids on sleep, and their possible use in subjects with related disorders. We have incorporated all the very useful suggestions so that the last paragraph has been extended and changed.
Title "Comments and Future Perspectives"
We liked the suggestion that made our work more complete.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work after the changes has been read. Now it looks much better.
Author Response
Thank you for the time spent reviewing our article and the comments that allowed us to improve it.
