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.
After revision, this manuscript can be accept as it is.
The Authors have carefully revised and corrected their manuscirpt. Current version can be accepted as it is now.
The Authors have carefully revised and corrected their manuscirpt. Current version can be accepted as it is now.
The Authors have carefully revised and corrected their manuscirpt. Current version can be accepted as it is now.
The Authors have carefully revised and corrected their manuscirpt. Current version can be accepted as it is now.
Author has addressed all raised question
Author has addressed all raised question
Author has addressed all raised question
Author has addressed all raised question
Based on the reviewer´s comments, I felt that a major revision is necessary before reconsideration. Please, verify carefully all the points raised by the Reviewers. I´m looking forward to receiving the revised version of your manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
The submitted manuscript is written in a clear and concise way, using proper style and language. It has a professional structure and the amount of references is appropriate.
The study design is OK, however there are some issues that needs to be solved, the details are provided in "additional comments" section.
This review is interesting and has a significant scientific value. Conclusions, based on the comprhensive literature search and analysis, are correct.
Lines 32 and 49, remove „recently”
Lines 104 and 105, what about O and H?
Line 135, it should be “phylum”
Line 182, it’s been 2 years since this has been done…
Was this study registered, i.e. in OSF?
The Authors should prepare the flowchart, based on the PRISMA statement. For direct instructions please visit PRISMA website.
Lines 239-240, the style must be improved to present those equations in a more clear way
Line 336, why is “Materials Science” with capital letters?
Author Ballen et al. describe "Current situation and future perspectives for the use of fungi
in the biomaterial industry and proposal for a new classification of fungal-derived materials".
Following are my comments on the editorial decision;
1:Abstract needs to revise
2:LIne 77>>>>>Mentioning The Fungi>>>is very general>>>>author should discuss what family, classes, and genus of fungi are reported in this review.
3: Provide a phylogenetic diversity of laccase-producing fungi
3:Additives to enhance fungal growth on substrates>>>>>How are they used for this, and in what form?
4:Fungal-based material>>>>> it would be nice if the author presented a table for this with the latest information.
5:Molecular biology as a tool to produce sustainable biomaterials>>>>>>How?
6: It would be nice to improve the font and size of the text in all figures.
7: Need also to present a figure showing the images of fungal mycelium, hyphae/morphology>>>>if possible>>>take online with copyright.
8: Present the chemical structures of the macromolecules derived from the fungi.
.
.
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.