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 adequately addressed the reviewers' comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**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 English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
I appreciate the authors’ efforts in addressing my earlier comments. The manuscript is well-structured and provides a comprehensive introduction, a thorough discussion of recent advances in nanoparticle-based therapies targeting fungal infections, and a critical analysis of the associated challenges. Additionally, the discussion of future directions adds valuable insights to the field.
The figures are well-designed and effectively complement the text, while the overall language and presentation are clear and appropriate for publication. Given these strengths and the improvements made, I recommend the manuscript for publication.
No comment
No comment
I accept this paper in current form but I recommend authors to check whole manuscript grammatically.
Thank you
Matched
Accurate
I accept this paper
The reviewers offered helpful suggestions for improving the manuscript. The reviewers recommended minor edits for readability, expanding discussions on nanoparticles and their challenges, and suggested adding nanoparticle synthesis and antifungal mechanism diagrams, including SEM images and a flow chart for medical applications. They also advised clarifying the review’s purpose, adding citations, italicizing scientific names, removing redundant keywords, restructuring the introduction and methodology, and ensuring grammatical accuracy.
The overall grammar and structure of the manuscript are well-written. However, minor edits in some sections, particularly lines 111–115 and 156–158, could enhance readability, clarity, and flow.
The introduction is comprehensive and provides substantial information on fungi, types of infections, and antifungal therapies. However, the section addressing nanoparticles and recent advances appears overly summarized. This brevity detracts from the purpose of the review, especially if its primary focus is intended to be on recent advancements, challenges, and future directions.
For example, Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3 could benefit from more detailed discussions of the progress made in using nanoparticles for antifungal therapies. It would be helpful to elaborate on specific studies, the results achieved, and comparisons between different approaches or nanoparticles. Additionally, highlighting how certain challenges faced by earlier nanoparticle systems were addressed or overcome would strengthen the discussion.
The section on challenges appears underdeveloped, with only one paragraph addressing this critical aspect (lines 373–378). Given that one of the stated objectives of the review is to detail the challenges faced, this section would benefit from greater depth. It would be helpful to elaborate on specific challenges associated with some of the innovations in nanoparticles, providing detailed insights supported by examples from the reviewed literature.
No comment
No comment
Thank you for your email and opportunity providing me to review manuscript. The manuscript looks good but still need further improvement. Here please find my detailed comments and suggestions.
Major comments
1) This review paper lack method of synthesis of nanoparticles with diagram.
2) I suggest authors to add SEM images that show the effects of nanoparticles including control and treatment.
3) why this review paper is written?
4) authors need to add diagram showing antifungal mechanism.
5) Authors need to add a flow chart showing application of nanoparticles regarding medical.
Minor corrections
Line 20: please mention annually mortality rate.
Line 34: Please remove the key words that are already used in title. I suggest you to choose unique key words.
Line 38-46: I can not see any citation in the text. I suggest authors to add relevant citations here.
There are two headings of introduction. I suggest you to mention only one introduction. Methodology part need to move last before conclusion.
There are many scientific name are not italicized. Please go through carefully and do corrections.
Looks fine
Need to improve
English editing and grammatical corrections needed.
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.