Goji Berry: Health Promoting Properties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The specific review offers a comprehensive analysis of the extent literature within bioactivities of Goji berry. The review covers the literature within time spam 1992-2020 that should be reported in the methodology set up.

Additionally, I think the reference of carotenoids in the abstract is quite misleading since its not the only category of secondary metabolites that contributes to Goji berries bioactivity. I would suggest to either refer all the categories that are going to be reported further in the main text e.g anthocyanins or be more generic in the abstract eg Bioactive secondary metabolites/ Bioactive natural products.

Moreover, during conclusions and discussion, it is necessary the authors to identify current gaps or problems regarding the research so far. They should be critical and constructive and provide recommendations for future research.

Finally, according to MDPI guidelines. The structure can include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Relevant Sections, Discussion, Conclusions, and Future Directions. In the present work discussion is missing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear editor,

First of all we would like to thank you and the reviewers for the efforts you made to improve this manuscript. We made all the proposed corrections. Please check our responds in the observations.

 

 

REVIEWER 1

 

Reviewer 1 Comments	Corrections
The specific review offers a comprehensive analysis of the extent literature within bioactivities of Goji berry.	Dear reviewer, thank you for the observations. The manuscript has been improved and we believe that now is meet the criteria for publication.
The specific review covers the literature with time spam 1992-2020 that should be reported in the methodology set up.	The specific statement was added in lines 48-55.
Additionally, I think the reference of carotenoids in the abstract is quite misleading since it’s not the only category of secondary metabolites that contributes to Goji berries bioactivity. I would suggest to either refer all the categories that are going to be reported further in the main text e.g anthocyanins or be more generic in the abstract eg Bioactive secondary metabolites / Bioactive natural products.	Thank you for the observation. We have corrected in lines 16 & 17.
Moreover, during conclusions and discussion, it is necessary the authors to identify current gaps or problems regarding the research so far. They should be critical and constructive and provide recommendations for future research.	This suggestion has been added in the corrected conclusion section.
Finally, according to MDPI guidelines. The structure can include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Relevant Sections, Discussion, Conclusions, and Future Directions. In the present work discussion is missing.	As we checked, we saw that generally in mini reviews and reviews the discussion section is not included.   https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3921/6/3/71/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/9/2/118/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3921/7/5/69/htm   Please inform us if it is necessary in order to correct it.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is interesting read and the topic is relevant to be published as a review. The manuscript however suffers from some important issues as mentioned below:

1. Abstract: Should be concise and precise to depict major contribution of the manuscript
2. Introduction: introduction should be short and crisp. Ideally 400-500 words. It should introduce the manuscript and not just the topic. Introduction should contain a thesis statement. It is usually the last statement of the paper, note it should be stand alone statement that states the aim of the work. 
3. Whole manuscript: Suffers from poor English. authors should take care of grammatical errors and punctuation. Moreover,
   

   A single sentence could not be a paragraph. The author should follow hierarchy:

   page>paragraph>sentence>words

   A paragraph should discuss all the necessary details about the topic and should only change if the topic or either the context of topic is changed. It will always be collection of sentences. 

   The manuscript could use some good tables to help structure the manuscript, currently all the information is scripted in form of text that is making it rather difficult to understand in the intended context.
4. References: what is the methodology used to select relevant references/citations. At times too old references are mentioned. This is particularly discouraged in review papers. 
5. Authors should enrich the paper with more relevant discussion that generalized information on tools and techniques or bookish information, major focus should be on goji berry relevant text.
6. In conclusion is merely stating the facts stated in the entire manuscript, surely needs refining
7. Authors could dramatically improve the manuscript given these suggestions are incorporated

Author Response

Dear editor,

First of all we would like to thank you and the reviewers for the efforts you made to improve this manuscript. We made all the proposed corrections. Please check our responds in the observations.

 

REVIEWER  2

 

Reviewer 2 Comments	Corrections
Abstract: Should be concise and precise to depict major contribution of the manuscript	We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her comments. The abstract revised based also on another reviewer’s observation
Introduction: introduction should be short and crisp. Ideally 400-500 words. It should introduce the manuscript and not just the topic. Introduction should contain a thesis statement. It is usually the last statement of the paper, note it should be stand-alone statement that states the aim of the work.	The introduction has been rewritten and now we believe that is more specific and not too long.
Whole manuscript: Suffers from poor English. authors should take care of grammatical errors and punctuation. Moreover, A single sentence could not be a paragraph. The author should follow hierarchy: page>paragraph>sentence>words A paragraph should discuss all the necessary details about the topic and should only change if the topic or either the context of topic is changed. It will always be collection of sentences.  The manuscript could use some good tables to help structure the manuscript, currently all the information is scripted in form of text that is making it rather difficult to understand in the intended context.	The authors improved the English in a more readable format                             Figure 2 added
References: what is the methodology used to select relevant references/citations. At times too old references are mentioned. This is particularly discouraged in review papers.  Authors should enrich the paper with more relevant discussion that generalized information on tools and techniques or bookish information, major focus should be on goji berry relevant text.	Information’s for the followed methodology added at the end of the discussion. New recent references added.
In conclusion is merely stating the facts stated in the entire manuscript, surely needs refining	The conclusion section refined/corrected.
Authors could dramatically improve the manuscript given these suggestions are incorporated	The authors made an effort to improve the manuscript based on reviewer’s observations

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the review article entitled “Goji Berry: Health Promoting Properties”, the authors elaborately highlighted the useful biological effects of Goji Berry in human pathological conditions. Even though it’s a mini-review, the authors wrote elaborately. Few points to be noted:

1. The authors tried to explain a lot of basic information (E.g.: 2.1: 3 paragraphs for what is antioxidant activity) at the beginning of each topic. As most of the readers have a scientific background, it is unnecessary to explain that.
2. The authors should make a figure with all the reported polyphenolic compounds in the Gojiberry extract. They should include the specific targets of those polyphenols (Fig2). 
3. The authors should improve the English in a more readable format.

Author Response

Dear editor,

First of all we would like to thank you and the reviewers for the efforts you made to improve this manuscript. We made all the proposed corrections. Please check our responds in the observations.

 

 

REVIEWER  3

 

Reviewer 2 Comments	Corrections
In the review article entitled “Goji Berry: Health Promoting Properties”, the authors elaborately highlighted the useful biological effects of Goji Berry in human pathological conditions. Even though it’s a mini-review, the authors wrote elaborately. Few points to be noted:	We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her comments.
The authors tried to explain a lot of basic information (E.g.: 2.1: 3 paragraphs for what is antioxidant activity) at the beginning of each topic. As most of the readers have a scientific background, it is unnecessary to explain that.	We have omitted the specific paragraph following the reviewer’s observation.
The authors should make a figure with all the reported polyphenolic compounds in the Gojiberry extract. They should include the specific targets of those polyphenols (Fig2).	Figure 2 added based the observation.
The authors should improve the English in a more readable format.	The authors improved the English in a more readable format

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is considerably improved after revision. Author should consider using of following references in few sections as mentioned.

Antiaging: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874609812666190521110548

Antidaibetic: https://doi.org/10.2174/1573399815666190807144422

 

 

 

Author Response

 

Dear editor,

First of all we would like to thank you and the reviewers for the efforts you made to improve this manuscript. We made all the proposed corrections. Please check our responds in the observations.

 

 

REVIEWER 1

 

Reviewer 1 Comments	Corrections
The manuscript is considerably improved after revision. Author should consider using of following references in few sections as mentioned. Antiaging: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874609812666190521110548 Antidiabetic: https://doi.org/10.2174/1573399815666190807144422	The suggested references were added.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors tried to include the changes suggested but there are a few errors that exist still. The English editing should be improved. The authors gave a long self-introduction for aging, diabetes, probiotics (explaining what is pro and what is biotic), and hepatoprotective activity like a book chapter. The review seems to be written like a book chapter. The authors should remodify if it has to be published like a review. 

Author Response

Dear editor,

First of all we would like to thank you and the reviewers for the efforts you made to improve this manuscript. We made all the proposed corrections. Please check our responds in the observations.

 

REVIEWER  2

 

Reviewer 2 Comments	Corrections
The authors tried to include the changes suggested but there are a few errors that exist still.
The English editing should be improved.	The manuscript has been edited
The authors gave a long self-introduction for aging, diabetes, probiotics (explaining what is pro and what is biotic), and hepatoprotective activity like a book chapter.	Irrelevant sentences in these sections have been deleted.
The review seems to be written like a book chapter. The authors should remodify if it has to be published like a review.	It has been an effort to modify the review