All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for addressing the remaining concerns and for the amending your manuscript accordingly. The revised version of this manuscript is acceptable now.
Please address a remaining concern of the reviewer and provide a list of abbreviations used in the manuscript.
Thank you to the authors for providing all corrections.
No comment
As far as my knowledge, the manuscript was well written and had no grammar or spelling errors. However, if the Editor finds this necessary, it would be very great if the authors provide a list of abbreviations used in the body of the texts.
Please address the concerns of both reviewers, paying close attention to the comments and suggestions of reviewer #1
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the response letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved throughout. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
no comment.
In the present study, the authors tried to collect material on the importance of the field of nanomedicine. Although the topic is very broad, in general, materials have been collected in some formats such as the application of nanomedicine, economic aspects, as well as challenges and future perspectives.
This study has many problems in terms of writing. My advice is that if it is to be published, it must first be greatly modified in writing. The next thing that worries me is the generality of the content. Although the topic has been selected as a whole, looking at each section, we see that no specific information is provided to the reader. For example, the part that talks about Taiwan's strategy is very unnecessary and vague. On the other hand, the Standards and Guidelines section does not contain detailed information. Content generally does not add anything new to the reader. As another example, in the Clinical Trials section, it is not stated how long these phases last for drugs derived from nanoparticle technology.
Another concern that cannot be ignored is the inconsistency of references with the content. For example, there is no connection between references “Blanco E, Hen H, Ferrari M. 2018” and “Brigger I, Dubernet C, and Couvreur P. 2002” with the referenced material.
This manuscript also requires tables that contain useful and up-to-date information such as nanoparticle classification (based on application or world usage or …), number of FDA-approved nano-drugs, and diseases that are currently treatable with nanoparticles.
Here are some grammatical errors.
Line 37, “was” must change with “were”.
Line 43, “precise” must change with “precision”.
Line 50, “offers” should be replaced with “offer”.
Line 51, “in case” must change with “in the case”.
Line 97, “has” must change with “have”.
Lines 108-112, the sentence (The progress discussed for…) is very long and confusing. Please amend it.
Line 116, “that” should be deleted.
Line 151, “or identifying them from”.
Line 199, “to increased” should be replaced with “to increase”.
Line 151, “steps”.
Line 392, “results”.
Line 539, “phenomena”
Providing more detailed data, eliminating some unnecessary parts such as Taiwan strategy, providing a rich table of contents, and synchronizing references with the content provided are important operations that should be considered.
This is a review on nanomedicine commercialization, but it seemed unfocused and the presented information appeared arbitrary. Few commercialization details are provided. The first part focused on regulatory frameworks for nanomedicine, but didn't include much concrete information. The next part discussed basics of nanomedicine, but again without depth and seemingly arbitrary manner. The selection of table 1 which focuses on Taiwanese nanomedicine and table 2 which lists seemingly random patent literature also makes this work unfit for publication.
NA
NA
NA
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.