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.
The authors have responded satisfactorily to the reviewers' comments. Therefore, the manuscript in its current form can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The reviewers have addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers. Thus the article may now accepted for possible publication in Peer J.
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
The reviewers have addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers. Thus the article may now accepted for possible publication in Peer J.
The authors made significant changes in the manuscript.
See comments above
See comments above
See comments above
Authors are advised to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.
I congratulate the authors for selecting an interesting topic, the manuscript is well written, however there are some comments in an annotated pdf which may be taken care by the author before the possible publication of this article.
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Sir,
The comments have been provided in review pdf which may be taken care by the author before the possible publication of this article.
The manuscript “Unique antimicrobial activity in honey from the Australian Honeypot Ant (Camponotus inûatus)” deals with the investigation into the antibacterial properties of honey made by the Australian honeypot ant (Camponotus inûatus) is interesting and valuable. The chemical characteristics and antibacterial activity of honey from honeypot ants (HPAH) against a panel of bacteria and fungi have been thoroughly investigated in this article. The study is very much interesting, and I have really enjoyed the experimental, result and discussion section. However, there is some concern that needs to be addressed before the final decision is made.
Comments
• Ln 31-34: Please rewrite the line.
• In the abstract section, one line on the future impact of the present study can be included.
• LN 43-46: Please expand the concept with more references.
• Ln 96: Please revisit the aims and objective of the study and write in more detail.
• Ln 101: Please provide the latitude and longitude of the place of collection.
• What were the criteria for selecting the strain of bacteria, yeasts, and moulds
• LN 291-299: Please rewrite with better clarity.
• I must appreciate the author for Fig. 5. This figure clarifies the study in a very simple way.
Please see above
Please see basic reporting
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.