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.
I have gone through the Rebuttal Letter and the revisions that you have made in this version of the manuscript. I believe that Reviewer #1's concerns are adequately addressed.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Reviewer #1 has raised some major concerns. Kindly respond with revisions to manuscript and/or in response-to-review letter.
Please refer my previous comments
Please refer my previous comments
The zone of inhibition data presented in Table 3 did not correlate with the visual information in Figure 6. Additionally, the images, exemplified by the unordered and poorly presented Figure 6, are not suitable for publication.
Furthermore, the authors declined to provide the requested data in the revised manuscript. Consequently, their superficial responses and data lacking scientific significance do not aid in recommending this work for publication.
Please refer my previous comments
Revision is satisfactory.
Revision is satisfactory.
Revision is satisfactory.
Revision is satisfactory.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Title: Structural insights and biomedical potential of biosynthesized silver nanoparticles: antibacterial activity, anti-biofilm and cancer cell inhibition
Recommendation: Publish with no revision.
Comments:
The article has been improved and I would recommend acceptance with no revision.
The manuscript was examined by three referees, all of whom have expressed major concerns. I hope you can address all of them with changes to the manuscript and/or comments in a response-to-review document.
In this work, the author reported the "Structural Insights and Biomedical Potential of Biosynthesized Silver Nanoparticles: Antibacterial Activity, Anti-Biofilm and Cancer Cell Inhibition."
1. Introduction: Lines 49–56 are written superficially. For example, how do these nanoparticles facilitate targeted delivery? "biocompatible polymers such as liposomes"??? and contains too much general information.
2. There was no description why three-type plant sources were chosen for AgO NPs synthesis.
3. Line no. 130-132, if AgNPs synthesized using the same source, what this study expolated more than the previous report?
1. Section 2: Why is the plant extract alone not enough to synthesize NPs?
2. Line no. 57 indicated that after 600 degrees Celsius, NPs were formed. Why?
3. Bacterial strains should be written strictly in italics.
4. Why was the biofilm eradication experiment only tested with S. aureus?
5. What was the differences between biofilm inhibition and biofilm eradication?
6. How about the toxicity of the NPs?
1. What about the zeta potential? Furthermore, the zeta size analysis should be supplemented, not required to be presented as the main figure.
2. Zones of inhibition should be supplemented.
3. Why Pg-AgONPs did not show the zone of inhibition while it displayed the MIC equal to Tm-AgONNPs. These results were not correlated with each other while it has a similar structure according to the XRD.
4. What about the absorbance and transmittance spectra of NPs?
5. Why were these NPs not tested in TEM?
6. Figure 3, what was it?
None
Refer attachment
Refer attachment
Refer attachment
The manuscript lacks structure, consistency, and organization.
.
In several instances, the manuscript lacks clarity in either the methodology used or the pathway by which the conclusions were reached.
no comment
Ms. Ref. No.: peerj-reviewing-111698-v0
Title: Structural insights and biomedical potential of biosynthesized silver nanoparticles: antibacterial activity, anti-biofilm and cancer cell inhibition
Recommendation: Publish after major revisions noted.
Comments:
In article "Structural insights and biomedical potential of biosynthesized silver nanoparticles: antibacterial activity, anti-biofilm and cancer cell inhibition" authors presented interesting study. Although idea of the study was good there is a list of additional points that need to be clarified and should be addressed carefully before publications:
1. Abstract is not attractive and should be improved. More numerical results should be given in the abstract.
2. How the present work is different from the available literatures? What is the new contribution of this work?
3. The manuscript text is logically structured and overall well presented. Some minor spelling mistakes should be corrected throughout.
4. In several instances, the manuscript lacks clarity in either the methodology used or the pathway by which the conclusions were reached.
5. Authors need to update the references in the introduction section because now we are in 2025.
6. Revise English in the text. Please address numerous errors in wording, spelling, and punctuation throughout the manuscript.
In summary, I deserve to be published, with the major additions listed above.
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.