Studying the Effect of Chondroitin Sulfate on the Physicochemical Properties of Novel Gelatin/Chitosan Biopolymer-Based Cryogels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work by G. Kudaibergen et al. is clearly written and the text is also fluent. I recommend acceptance of this work with minor revision. Several suggestions for the authors’ consideration. 1) Novelty is critical to all papers, so I suggest the authors spend more sentences on it. For example, why EDC is important? Is EDC the only access to large pore size? 2) The rheological property of gels affects not only application of gels but also the proliferation of the cells. If the authors have access to a rheometer, I suggest them to add the corresponding data. This is only a friendly suggestion, and I do not mean they have to do so. 3) I suggest the authors to compact the text. For example, I feel that they could delete the paragraph span from line 198 to 205 without lose anything. 4) The authors need to double check the text. In line 91 and 114, it should be pH=7.4 not 7,4. In line 260, they need to translate the words that not in English.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

We are very pleased with your opinion about our article. Please find our response comments below:

 

Point 1: Novelty is critical to all papers, so I suggest the authors spend more sentences on it. For example, why EDC is important? Is EDC the only access to large pore size?

 

Response 1: We updated the novelty of the work and added new publications on the topic. The choice of EDC was not justified on obtaining large pores in cryogels. It is a crosslinking agent between polymers, and its concentration is the same in all cryogels.

 

Point 2: The rheological property of gels affects not only application of gels but also the proliferation of the cells. If the authors have access to a rheometer, I suggest them to add the corresponding data. This is only a friendly suggestion, and I do not mean they have to do so.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion, however currently we do not have the option to access to a rheometer. We will take this into account for further research.

 

Point 3: I suggest the authors to compact the text. For example, I feel that they could delete the paragraph span from line 198 to 205 without lose anything.

 

Response 3: We deleted the paragraph span from line 198 to 205.

 

Point 4: The authors need to double check the text. In line 91 and 114, it should be pH=7.4 not 7,4. In line 260, they need to translate the words that not in English.

 

Response 4: We double checked the text and corrected all the comments. The sentence for line 260 has been translated into English.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Your article is generally in order. There is not much in it to improve. The research is well designed and constructive conclusions have been drawn. I recommend the article for acceptance after improving the comments below:

(I) There are not many publications new to the subject of the study in the introduction - especially about other biodegradable polymers and their applications. Please expand the intro and add the latest publications in the field of biopolymers

(II) The aim of the work is very laconic, much has to be guessed from what is written in the publication - write about research methods, rats, and statistics

(III) As far as the description of research methodology is concerned, please describe more precisely the statistical model, programs which you used, because it is not in the methodology and it should be supplemented 

(IV) Regarding graphics - Figures 1, 2, and 5 are of poor quality, there is a problem with resolution and axis descriptions to make them readable. Please improve it.

(V) Line 260 is written in Russian, please correct this.

Having taken these remarks into account and corrected them, I recommend the article for acceptance.

Best Wishes

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

 

Please see the attachment.

 

Best regards,

Authors 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic submitted is novel and adds significant research data to the existing field of research. The article is not very well articulated needs English language revisions and even formatting of the manuscript as per the Appl Sci guidelines. The manuscript needs to be checked for statistical significance and clear figures. The research manuscript is not well articulated but further needs more information, to cite relevant latest references are required as per the following recommendations. Authors are advised to cite the below in relevant methodology and results and discussion sections.

International journal of biological macromolecules 94 (2017): 611-620.

Marine Drugs,2020, 18 (201), 17

Materials & Design (2021): 109865.

International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 165 (Part B), 1924-1938

Artificial cells, nanomedicine, and biotechnology, 46(3), pp.637-649.

Gels 2021, 7 (3), 96

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

 

Please see the attachment.

 

Best regards,

Authors 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx