Bioresources in the Formation of New-Generation Products

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article focuses on the prospects for using the potential of Siberian bioresources in the development of new-generation products aimed at protecting the health of people living in a polluted urban environment and the threat factors associated with the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic.

The topic is relevant to sustainable development. The article has practical and scientific value.

However, the authors need to significantly improve the article.

 

Authors need to proofread the text for gender neutrality. For example, line 43 is "modern man", perhaps the authors will choose "people". The word "man" carries a muscular sign, and the article is scientific, which means gender-neutral.

A paragraph cannot be equal to one sentence. The paragraph contains several sentences. Look carefully at your text, there are a lot of such moments.

Lines 52-55 are a very confusing sentence.

 

The authors need to refine the text for greater clarity. The proposals are often very cumbersome, making it difficult to understand the authors' ideas.

 

The Methodology section needs to be improved. It is necessary to write down how the study was conducted, etc. Point "Limitations" is also needed.

 

Line 126 "Modern researchers characterize a new stage of urbanization -". It is not clear which studies are needed here to substantiate this position.

Isami sentences as if from the Introduction.

In the Results section, the beginning is a Theoretical Introduction. The article is devoted to the study of the use of the potential of Siberian bioresources. So the Results should reflect and present this information.

 

The authors need to reconsider the presentation of the article. In the Results and Discussion sections, you need to make an order. In this version, the Discussion contains materials that may be in the Results.

 

Strange use of the "-" sign. Especially when authors use it to highlight a fragment in a sentence. Doesn't provide clarity. The authors are missing the verb.

 

The Conclusion section does not reflect the main results.

 

The References section is not designed following the requirements of the journal.

At the moment, the text needs serious improvement. The text has many long sentences with several meanings. I recommend that the authors turn to a specialist for professional assistance.

Author Response

Dear reviewer! with all comments agree. thank you ! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes the prospects for using the potential of Siberian bioresources in the development of new generation products aimed at protecting the health of people living in a polluted urban environment and threat factors associated with the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. The work has been carried out with care and the results have been presented with clarity and discussed appropriately. The study focuses on the fact that new scientific and technological solutions enhance the quality side of the product offer, form a new consumer vision for maintaining health, attitude towards the environment and rational use of natural resources. In addition, the new products and methods proposed by the authors based on the unique properties of the wild flora of Siberia. In this way, this manuscript demonstrates a significant contribution in the area of sustainability. Accordingly, I can recommend publication of this work in Sustainability after solving the issues detected.

Issues:

- Authors should check grammatical or formatting errors.

- Authors should check and put the bibliography in the correct format.

- This investigation/manuscript should make a comparison of this methodology over others and demonstrate the improvement and advantage of this methodology over other methodologies.

-          Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer!
thank you for the notes.  we have tried to improve the article taking into account the comments   

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is not clear to me.

The abstract is too long, does not focus on the purpose of the article, and raises many unnecessary issues.

The introduction is poorly written. Correct it. Add highlights to your article.

The second section is not complete. In it you show a general look at the research methodology. Correct it, in its current form it is not suitable for a professional scientific journal.

Section 3 is too long and badly written. I have the impression that it combines something like a literature review and research results. Divide this section into two separate sections.

I don't understand your tables. Do they contain the results of the tests referred to in Chapter 2?

I have the impression that the discussion contains elements that should appear in the results section of the article. Why is that?

Conclusions are too short.

The article is a general mess. I propose to correct it.

Author Response

Dear reviewer!

thank you for the notes.  we have tried to improve the article taking into account the comments  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments:

The manuscript entitled “Bioresources in the formation of new generation products” has many grammatical/typos issues that need to be corrected. The authors need to proofread the manuscript thoroughly. I suggest the following changes and improvements:

1.     Generally, there is a sentence about the research background at the start of the abstract which highlights the research significance and current research problem.

2.     The article discusses the prospects for using the potential of Siberian bioresources in the development of new generation products aimed…….…… Please rephrase and it will be better to write in 2 sentences.

3.     The authors need to improve the Abstract section considering the important findings and underscore the scientific value added to your manuscript in your abstract.

4.     The current structure of the introduction is not well organized. The authors need to be improved. Additionally, the last part needs to be revised considering the main theme/objectives and findings of the research.

5.     The novelty and research significance of this work should be stated clearly in the introduction section.

6.     Space issues should be removed such as pandemic . all levels , various industries , etc.

7.     Lines 88-90, 91-94, 95-96, 130-132, 266-267, 325-326: Just one sentence, please avoid too short paragraphs. The authors need to proofread the manuscript thoroughly.

8.     In nature, there are a large number of bioresources of plants and animals for various pur-poses, agricultural culture, culture of forestry, marine and other farms. an area that……….. Need rephrasing and eliminate the grammatical/typos issue.

9.     The author needs to improve the materials and method section. Additionally, added more discussion.

10.  Line 148: The author cares about subscripts such as CO2.

11.  Line 195: All typos should be removed such esources. [eleven].

12.  Of particular concern is the cyclical nature of new and re-emerging infections, which………… Please rewrite and eliminate the grammatical issue.

13.  Figure 1: X and Y-axis units are missing.

14.  Conclusion is a fundamental recap of whole data sets. Authors need to revise and improve based on key findings with clearer summarized information and research significance.

 

15.  The references should be checked as per the Journal format. Additionally, the numbers of references need to be extended to support the data/statement.

Mentioned in the comments section.

Author Response

Dear reviewer!

thank you for the notes.  we have tried to improve the article taking into account the comments  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have significantly improved the text. Highlight your position. The research is interesting and important for the development of the topic of sustainable development. However, the authors should pay attention to the shortcomings in the article, some of which were even indicated in the previous review. The abstract is not divided into paragraphs. line 24: "This leads to a reduction". A noun should be used instead of "This". Line 40: "It should be noted that". This turn is more colloquial than scientific. What you are writing about is already attracting attention. Stylistically, the text can be improved. Line 48: "organs - by" is a better verb instead of "-". Line 87: "A number of" - a lot, or another word, but specific.. Lines 93-97: The sentence can be divided into 2 or three. Bulky constructions in a scientific article in English are not welcome. Even in lines 144-146 you have hidden the main idea behind introductory constructions. And so on throughout the text. Stylistically, the text needs improvement. Pages 135-139 (Research objectives) - Tasks should be additionally highlighted with numbers or "-". lines 457-458: This sentence should be reformulated. Or the link has been moved to a place at the beginning of the sentence. You can specify the last name, then the link and continue the sentence. The following sentence also needs to be reformulated. "Modern megacities [32]" - means that you are quoting Modern megacities. Move the link to the end of the sentence. Please note that the journal uses the citation designation, then a period. It is not clear what the quotes refer to. The list of references should be designed in accordance with the requirements of the journal to which you are submitting the article. Finalize this item. I pointed it out in the last review. Moreover, you insert literature from other lists without removing their previous numbering. I recommend looking at the articles in MDPI that suit you on the topic. To do this, use the Keywords service.

Author Response

Dear reviewer! 
We thank you for your detailed consideration of the article and the comments made.
we tried to correct all the comments. it certainly improves the quality of the article. 
Thank you for your contribution to our article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made the suggested changes. The article is better. I accept.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer! 
We thank you for your detailed consideration of the article and the comments made.
Thank you for your contribution to our article

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have answered the comments satisfactorily.

The author should care about space.

Author Response

Dear reviewer! 
We thank you for your detailed consideration of the article and the comments made.
Thank you for your contribution to our article