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.
Authors have adressed all of the reviewers' comments. The manuscript can be accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I am satisfied with the revision and the authors has addressed most of my concerns.
I am satisfied with the revision and the authors has addressed most of my concerns.
I am satisfied with the revision and the authors has addressed most of my concerns.
I am satisfied with the revision and the authors has addressed most of my concerns.
responses are satisfied
responses are satisfied
responses are satisfied
responses are satisfied
As recommended, the manuscript needs extensive revision.
Reviewer 2 has suggested that you cite specific references. You are welcome to add it/them if you believe they are relevant. However, you are not required to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
.
.
.
The authors in this review paper title ‘Nanobiocatalyst: A revolution in enzyme technology with far-reaching implications for industrial and biomedical applications’ highlighted the role of nanobiocatalyst in several application including food industry and biofuel. They also have focussed on enzyme immobilization and nanomaterials. The review is well written and provides a comprehensive pros and cons of these newer technologies/materials/biocatalysts. However, there are numerous reviews on these topics and it does not provide new insights. Also the fact that the authors try to combine three similar topics in one rather than focus on one. Some Questions and concerns
1. The Abstract need to concise and focussed. Please shortened its length and make it more concise.
2. Why authors have added Survey Methodology in this review. Is it necessary? Please remove it completely as it impaired the flow of the review.
3. The title is misleading. Please change it as authors in most of the review discuss the enzyme, biocatalyst, its immobilization, advantages, nanomaterials etc.
4. It would be ideal to focus on Nanobiocatalyst and leave out enzyme immobilization.
Author reported Nanobiocatalyst: A revolution in enzyme technology with far-reaching implications for industrial and biomedical applications. The journals receive a large number of review regarding on that subject. The authors must need to elaborate more to address the importance of this manuscript since the topic has been fairly active in research area
1. Author must emphasize the novelty and orginality of the work in the abstract.
2. What is the motivation behand this work, please give brief and clear explanation.
3. Please strictly revise the English language to remove typo etc
4. The articles about novel enzyme immobilization technology can be considered for cite to improve the manuscript.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
• Nature Nanotech 7, 428–432 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2012.80
• SmartMed.2024;3:e20230040
• Polym Adv Technol.2024;35:e6272.
• Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences Volume 27, Issue 10, October 2020, Pages 2574-2579
• Odontology 112, 444–452 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-023-00857-2
• ChemistrySelect2023,8, e20230040
• Langmuir 2023, 39, 13, 4819–4828
• Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023; 11: 1256181.
• Journal of Biotechnology Volume 343, 10 January 2022, Pages 96-101
• Sci Rep 10, 16765 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73778-7
Please provide logical explanation to includ “section 7.Green Synthesis of Nanomaterials” in enzyme technology related manuscript.
Please clearly indicate enzyme immobilization and activity with mechanism in stead of report them.
Please provide effect of experimental parameters on immobilization and activity?
None
In the present manuscript, “ Nanobiocatalyst: A Revolution in enzyme technology with far-reaching implications for Industrial and biomedical Applications,” Hhafaga et al. tried to describe the concept, methodology, and application of Nano-biocatalysts. Though nanobiocatalyst is a relatively new research frontier, several articles have already been published. It challenges the novelty and uniqueness of the present review article. Additionally, manuscript content limits the scope of wide readership.
The introduction section fails to justify the rationale of the manuscript. The authors claimed that the present review is unique as it focuses on the green synthesis of nanomaterials. However, the manuscript theme begs to differ from the given justification.''
Language is also found to be poor in many instances.
The present manuscript primarily focuses on nanomaterial biosynthesis and immobilization processes. Authors have given very limited attention to the unique catalytic properties of nanocatalysts concerning native biocatalysts, which makes them efficient for various applications.
The manuscript structure gives a feeling of a routine nanomaterial-based article.
The author should have worked to highlight the manuscript's uniqueness to fetch a wide readership. Additionally, the review structure fails to justify the theme.
The manuscript is not balanced, and the review contents are biased toward the synthesis methodology. The authors are not able to explain how nano biocatalysts are a revolution in enzyme technology and their far-reaching implications. I am unable to locate if the authors have raised any key questions or knowledge gaps, as well as tried to answer them.
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.