Modification of PLA Scaffold Surface for Medical Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to authors attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you for all your comments. I am attaching the detailed response in the file.

Kind regards,

Michał Młotek

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In general the manuscript must be througlhy improved. I do not recommed the publication of the manuscript. Maybe after a main revision. Introduction part, results are not well presented (e.g. state exactly what is modified membrane in each case, FTIR-ATR graphic has not of enough quality for publication, what are the dispersion and polar component etc)

Especific comments:

row 6-7: I tis recommended to rewrite the negative sentece in a positive one.

Row 60: it is recommended to add “PLA is obtained from lactide or lactic acid [...] polycondesation, respectively [9].”

Rows form 65 to 91 and from 97 to 119 are experimental part no introduction. These paragraphs would be in results or discussion part. In the introduction it must be focused on the systems studied before and what is the improvement of this manuscript. For example, in the state-of-the-art is not detailed the polymer that concretly is used for the publication, neither they are not discussed the especifical results.

Row 135: it must be detailed the specific polymer that has been used and the techniques (names, conditions and so on)

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you for all your comments. I am attaching the detailed response in the file.

Kind regards,

Michał Młotek

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The aim of the manuscript is fine, but its quality is very poor. 

1. Lines 7-8: The first sentence must be reformulated.
2. The authors didn't mention the aim of the study in the abstract.
3. What is the novelty of the study?
4. The authors must reorganize the whole introduction. Is too long and there is a lot of textbook/Wikipedia-style writing. The information is enumerated in sentences that are not connected and is confusing to readers. 
5. Please mention all the details about the reagents and devices used (e.g. manufacturer).
6. The section Results and Discussion must include comparisons with other studies from the literature.
7. The manuscript needs an extended proofreading because there are a lot of typographical and grammatical errors. Also, the English language used needs serious improvements.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you for all your comments. I am attaching the detailed response in the file.

Kind regards,

Michał Młotek

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Please see attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you for all your comments. I am attaching the detailed response in the file.

Kind regards,

Michał Młotek

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improve the paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review, all your suggestions have been taken into account. Detailed list of corrections can be found in the attached file.

Kind regards

Michał Młotek

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made significant effort to address all my comments and concerns. I sincerely recommend the publication of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review, all your suggestions have been taken into account. Detailed list of corrections can be found in the attached file.

Kind regards

Michał Młotek

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Please see attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your review, all your suggestions have been taken into account. Detailed list of corrections can be found in the attached file.

Kind regards

Michał Młotek

Author Response File: Author Response.docx