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 November 20th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 22nd, 2025.
  • The first revision was submitted on February 19th, 2025 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on February 24th, 2025.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Feb 24, 2025 · Academic Editor

Accept

The authors replied satisfactorily to the most critical reviewer.

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

The Section Editor noted that the following minor issues should be checked: 1) L 61-62 This claim needs a supporting reference -- 2) L 112 "socked" should say "soaked" -- 3) L 406 "Thai cultivars" should say "a Thai cultivar" (only one cultivar voucher was recorded) -- 4) L 592 "my sincere" should say "our sincere"

**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jan 22, 2025 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Authors should reply, in particular, to reviewer 3 on these issues:

1. species identifications
2. chemical constituents

·

Basic reporting

It Could be add more figures

Experimental design

its OKk

Validity of the findings

okk

Additional comments

its good

·

Basic reporting

Please write all abbreviations in full at the bottom of tables and charts

Experimental design

Please write a voucher number for the plant
Why did you choose the maceration and infusion method? You could do just maceration.
The dried extract could solve in DMSO easily?
In line 39, after dissolving extracts, they kept in 4ºC?
Line 115: please write the rotary properties for evaporating water.
Line 116: the extract dissolve in water easily? How was the texture of dried water extract?
Line 215: please explain MHB
Please add references for the method part.
Line 277: which Post-hoc test was used?

Validity of the findings

Please write all abbreviations in full at the bottom of tables and charts.
Don’t write any interpretation in result section
Line 398 and 399: don’t need write abbreviations in parenthesis
Table 1: why the TFC is bigger than TPC? Flavonoids are a subset of phenols and naturally their amount should be lower than that of phenols.

Additional comments

Lawson, as an important active ingredient in henna, has not received much attention in this study. Please compare it with the amount of lawson in henna from other regions of the world, and you can also write about the effects of lawson in the results of the tests.
Please also discuss the structural differences between gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria and the effect of henna extracts on them.
Line 548: “I” must be correct

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

There are several basic concerns about this MS. Here, the main ones. Henna can not be considered the name of the plant, but the product obtained by extraction. The confusion leads to the reported constituents, since lawsone is not present in the raw material, but its precursors, named hennosides, as already largely reported, but not evidently known to the authors. In fact, lawsone is not present in the graphic of the phytochemical analysis of the paper. In accordance with the international rules, the species should be identified by an expert. Who identified the plant? In absence of this identification all the research could be without any utility. In the case of this species several subspecies and cultivars are reported.

Experimental design

Se previous comments and add that the MS lacks of novelties being most of the results already present in the literature of this plant, which has been largely studied. References are clearly not adequate.

Validity of the findings

see previous comments about novelty

Additional comments

the MS is not acceptable considering the absence of several prerequisite.

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.