Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on May 6th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 17th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on July 4th, 2024 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on July 29th, 2024.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Jul 29, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

The authors responded to the reviewers' requests. One of the reviewers confirmed that the corrections had been made, for the others I checked the corrections. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The reviewers' recommendations enhanced the work, and the authors considered those comments. This manuscript is worthy of publication.

Experimental design

No recommendation.

Validity of the findings

No recommendation.

Additional comments

No recommendation.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jun 17, 2024 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

As authors can see, reviewers' main considerations are related to the presentation of the manuscript. I suggest that the authors carry out a detailed review and resubmit the file commenting on the points raised by the reviewers.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The work is of easy lecture, the main objectives of the work are also clear and the methodology used to achieve such goals is also fine. The description of the results as well as their discussion are adequate and based on this analysis I consider that the manuscript can be accepted after very few remarks which can be taken into account or not:
“…compounds, including polysaccharides, triterpenoids, steroids, sterols, amino acids, nucleotides…”. Since sterols are steroids, it will be preferable to remove the term “sterols”.
In the Introduction and in my opinion the sentence: “The use of edible and medicinal plants for cancer prevention and treatment is increasingly common in dietary therapy and health maintenance, aligning with the trend towards natural living” could be removed since the target of study is a mushroom and not a plant.

Experimental design

The work is of easy lecture, the main objectives of the work are also clear and the methodology used to achieve such goals is also fine. The description of the results as well as their discussion are adequate and based on this analysis I consider that the manuscript can be accepted after very few remarks which can be taken into account or not:
“…compounds, including polysaccharides, triterpenoids, steroids, sterols, amino acids, nucleotides…”. Since sterols are steroids, it will be preferable to remove the term “sterols”.
In the Introduction and in my opinion the sentence: “The use of edible and medicinal plants for cancer prevention and treatment is increasingly common in dietary therapy and health maintenance, aligning with the trend towards natural living” could be removed since the target of study is a mushroom and not a plant.

Validity of the findings

The work is of easy lecture, the main objectives of the work are also clear and the methodology used to achieve such goals is also fine. The description of the results as well as their discussion are adequate and based on this analysis I consider that the manuscript can be accepted after very few remarks which can be taken into account or not:
“…compounds, including polysaccharides, triterpenoids, steroids, sterols, amino acids, nucleotides…”. Since sterols are steroids, it will be preferable to remove the term “sterols”.
In the Introduction and in my opinion the sentence: “The use of edible and medicinal plants for cancer prevention and treatment is increasingly common in dietary therapy and health maintenance, aligning with the trend towards natural living” could be removed since the target of study is a mushroom and not a plant.

Additional comments

The work is of easy lecture, the main objectives of the work are also clear and the methodology used to achieve such goals is also fine. The description of the results as well as their discussion are adequate and based on this analysis I consider that the manuscript can be accepted after very few remarks which can be taken into account or not:
“…compounds, including polysaccharides, triterpenoids, steroids, sterols, amino acids, nucleotides…”. Since sterols are steroids, it will be preferable to remove the term “sterols”.
In the Introduction and in my opinion the sentence: “The use of edible and medicinal plants for cancer prevention and treatment is increasingly common in dietary therapy and health maintenance, aligning with the trend towards natural living” could be removed since the target of study is a mushroom and not a plant.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

Proofreading and editing English might be needed for this manuscript. Also, the resolution of the figures needs to be improved.

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

The authors of this manuscript showed that the encapsulation of G.lucidum decoction with 2-HP-

·

Basic reporting

1. Abstract: - The authors should re-arrange and re-write the abstract in the following order (Problem of research, aim of study, remarkable methodology, remarkable results, and significance of study).
2. Introduction: - The authors should enrich the manuscript generally and this section specifically with much more recent diverse applications’ studies and clarify the significance of this paper compared to the others.

Experimental design

3. Materials and methods: - The authors should provide the relevant references to some subsections.

Validity of the findings

4. Figures: - Some tables are entitled as figures; the authors should correct them. – The authors should provide the high-resolution figures (they were not clear).
5. Conclusions: - The authors should rewrite this section comprehensively and suitably.

Additional comments

- The authors should polish the linguistic English style all over the manuscript.
- The authors should apply the guidelines for authors in general on the whole manuscript (e.g., correct several editing errors, etc.). As follows are some editing corrections for some References (highlighted in yellow color):
El Sheikha A. F. (2022). Nutritional Profile and Health Benefits of Ganoderma lucidum "Lingzhi, Reishi, or Mannentake" as Functional Foods: Current Scenario and Future Perspectives. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 11(7), 1030. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11071030
El Sheikha A. F., Dian-Ming Hu D-H. (2018). How to trace the geographic origin of mushrooms? Trends in Food Science & Technology, 78, 292-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.06.008

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.