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 manuscript is now suitable for publication in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors must be carefully addressed the reviewer comments as recommended
Manuscript is in good shape for publication!
Thank you very much for addressing the concerns. Manuscript is in better shape for publication!
As previously reported in review and following addressing those comments and revisions, I believe this manuscript is in better shape for publication. Thank you very much for the revisions.
The article has written very well, it has mentioned new findings. I have found no similarity index not plagiarism. I have also found new topics and words in the manuscript with good paragraphing and updated references.
The study design is OK, and the authors have organized the manuscript very well. I do not see any changes are needed in this part. I think and I suggest authors to design tables which indicate herbs and plants from traditional Chinese medicine, traditional Iranian medicine and traditional Islamic medicines to different column, their impacts, their interactions and their healthy benefits for central nervous system.
The manuscript has presented new findings and discoveries, and the novel findings can be recommended for publication after Minor revision.
The article has written and designed very well, but it just has few errors, and the English language of the manuscript can be improved and revised by one fluent English speaker or/and double-checked by authors.
The authors must be carefully addressed all the reviewers' comments.
[# 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. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic herb-drug interactions – Part I. Herbal medicines of the central nervous system by Czigle et al have done great job reviewing the literature. Where, they present a comprehensive account of Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic herb-drug interactions.
However, if they address some of the following concerns, this manuscript will a good addition to our understanding of science and herbal medicine.
Please use proper referencing, introduction does not have proper references, however they have done a great job at referencing at the end of the introduction. Please pay special attention to grammar, abbreviation and annotations. Intro sounds a bit repetitive at the end, please make sure to avoid the repetition especially at the end. Apart from that, the story reads pretty well!
Study design using Survey methodology yet again lack significant referencing. It although gives hints of what to expect but it doesn't sound accurate to do so. Please use italics wherever required if and when botanical nomenclature is utilized.
No comment
After addressing some of the minor concerns in the above areas this manuscript will be in a good condition to accept for publication!
Thank you very much for this opportunity to review this manuscript, appreciated!
Thank you,
Nitin
The article needs Major Revision, I have pointed out just some points in Additional Comments, Authors should consider these changes. The article can be re-checked again after Major Revision.
Study design is OK.
The article is talking and discussing about pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic herb-drug interations and herbal medicines of the central nervous system.
The article need Major revision, I have pointed out some key points which should be considered. After Major revision, this article can be accepted for publication.
1- The Abstract has written very well, but Line 22, which has written (( Herbal medicines may affect the effect of the concomitantly used ....), the sentence in this part is not clear, especially when affect and effect are near each other, please, re-write this sentence.
2- It is suggested to add one part of Materials and methods, and the way authors have gathered information at the end of Abstract, and even different sources that they have used.
3-Line 33, please correct first (( ,, ) at the first line.
4- There are many citations from Newman & Cragg, almost 5 citations, please, decrease it to less than three, it is not acceptable to citations from one or two authors several times.
5- Paragraphing in Introduction is not very appropriate.
6- First you should write European Medicines Agency-Committe on Herbal Medicinal Products, and then EU s EMA-HMPC (line 47-47, Introduction). It must be corrected.
7- it seems some lines are BOLD, like lines 48, 49, 50, 51, and 52 ????? Why some lines are Bold in Introduction?????
8- Line 57, re-write the sentence,, Regardless, even if, it is not clear at all.
9- Line 73, put one space between grape fruit (NOT GRAPEFRUIT)
10- Line 97, authors should first write the english names of Ginkgo biloba and Hypericum perforatum, and then scientific names. This MUST be done for the names of all other crops and medicinal plants in this manuscript.
11- Make Italic for words in line 137, 138, 139. All scientific names in the manuscript and references must be Italics.
12- Line 221 and 222, its does not need to put this sentence between ,,
13- The headline 318. Valerianae radix should be Italics.
14- There are so many English and grammatical errors which should be corrected, authors can use English service or ask one native English speaker to revise and edit the whole manuscript.
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.