A Brief Review on the Development of Alginate Extraction Process and Its Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Kindly go through my comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please refer to the attached file for the reply to the reviewer's comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, personally I find no uniqueness in this manuscript.
Its a compilation of methodology related to the extraction of alginate. Given its a method based review, probably its somewhat acceptable to be considered.
I request the authors to include some valuable synthesis from the compilation. A table of summary of pros and cons of the extraction method will be useful.
Table 3 and Figure 4 seems repetitive. I suggest, improve the Figure to contain information of the table. This will be a good graphical summary.
A graphical abstract would be useful to entice interest of readers.
Authors need to be very careful in the way scientific names are written. This is extremely basic and I expect more from authors who are attempting publication in international journals.
Importantly, authors need to carefully study the journal format in construction of the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please refer to the attached file for the reply of reviewers' comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Deal the following:
- Follow the journal template example: table headers must be bold
- be consistent: for example; all temperature denotations are not the same
- carefully check the superscripts and similar
- line 112: table 2; check
- line 331: Table 2 again: font!!
Author Response
Response to Reviewers’ comments
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1658238
“A brief review on the development of alginate extraction process and its sustainability”
Reviewer Comments:
Reviewer 1
Deal the following:
- Follow the journal template example: table headers must be bold
- be consistent: for example; all temperature denotations are not the same
- carefully check the superscripts and similar
- line 112: table 2; check
- line 331: Table 2 again: font!!
Re: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. “Bold” has been used for Table headers as suggested. All temperature symbols have been checked and make them consistent. The manuscript has been checked against for grammar and spelling mistakes. Table 2 have been checked and some minor mistakes have been correct.
Thanks for the reviewer’s contribution.
Regards,
Chenyu Du (on behalf of all authors)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments given were addressed.
Im satisfied with the improvement of Figure 4. Please use this as graphical abstract too if possible.
As for tables, please landscape where suitable for ease of read. Some of it seemed rather too compact.
Please thoroughly go through the MDPI formatting style of referencing in the text and throughout the manuscript.
Thoroughly check the manuscript for spelling and language.
Author Response
Response to Reviewers’ comments
Manuscript ID: sustainability-1658238
“A brief review on the development of alginate extraction process and its sustainability”
Reviewer Comments:
Reviewer 2
Comments given were addressed.
I’m satisfied with the improvement of Figure 4. Please use this as graphical abstract too if possible.
As for tables, please landscape where suitable for ease of read. Some of it seemed rather too compact.
Please thoroughly go through the MDPI formatting style of referencing in the text and throughout the manuscript.
Thoroughly check the manuscript for spelling and language.
Re: Thanks for the reviewer’s comment. Figure 4 will be uploaded as a graphical abstract. For Table 2, we uploaded as a landscape table. It was changed to vertical by the system automatically. I guess it was for ease of review. I would recommend the format editor to use as a landscape table. The references and minor mistakes have been checked and correct.
Thanks for the reviewer’s contribution.
-----------------------
Regards,
Chenyu Du (on behalf of all authors)
