The Influence of Cannabinoids on Multiple Myeloma Cells: A Scoping Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The short review was clear, however, I suggest that in the introduction some information about the new therapies for MM (anti-BCMA and CAR-T) should be described.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The review is about the use of cannabinoids in multiple myeloma.
The structure of the text is unusual. Being a review it should not be written as a research article, especially since there is not a great deal of data to discuss. A review is a critical article regarding specific topic. Here the authors have simply put together the results of 6 articles.
Especially the authors have a great confusion between cannabinoids in general and cannabidiol (CBD). The abbreviation CBD should not be used to identify cannabinoids in general.
Lines 28-31 should be moved after line 34.
Ref 4 and 5 should be updated because authors are talking about 2022.
There are various mistakes to be corrected even typing
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors deal with The Influence of Cannabinoids on Multiple Myeloma Cells
The topic is of interest and I have the next comments for improvement of the MS:
Introduction: add more data regarding MM and the correlation with cannabinoids. Also, a cartoon will be welcomed by the readers, for a better understanding
Material methods: all the terms used for searching should be MeSH terms. Revise it.
Table 2: this contains too many acronyms, and all abbreviations mentioned must be explained below the table. Also, there is too much text included. You can use arrows:↓ or ↑ instead of decrease, and decrease respectively.
The molecular mechanisms of the CBD’s effects on MM cells must be summarized in a figure.
There are a lot of published papers on this topic. What is the novelty of this paper?
What perspectives for human health does this MS have?
Consider revision accordingly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors revised the MS accordingly. Only one minor point before the final approval: regarding Figure 3, I recommend adding a legend with all symbols and acronyms below the figure.
Author Response
Reviwer comment: The authors revised the MS accordingly. Only one minor point before the final approval: regarding Figure 3, I recommend adding a legend with all symbols and acronyms below the figure.
Response: The authors appreciate the recommendation made regarding Figure 3 and agree that a complete legend would enhance clarity. A completed figure legend with symbols has been added and all abbreviations have been appropriately defined below the figure. Additionally, minor changes were made to the pathways demonstrated in Figure 3 to make it more informative for readers.
