Nano–Bio Interface of Molybdenum Disulfide for Biological Applications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review article " MoS2-Biomoleclues Interaction Serving in MoS2 Based Biomedical material" describes interfacial interactions between MoS2 and various biological molecules. In order to increase the usefulness and significance of the study, it needs a major revision before being considered suitable for readers and there are some points to overcome for acceptance.
Change type of article (above the main title section) Article to Review.
Title of the paper is too ambiguous to understand what the authors are trying to convey.
There are several review articles on 2D MoS2 for biomedical applications such as https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.201701158
MoS2–based nanostructures: synthesis and applications in medicine
https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201803706
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmaterialslett.1c00073
Authors need to explain the novelty of this current work.
In the introduction section, it is recommended that the rationale of the research must be incorporated in the form of the figure and also it is recommended to tone up the introduction section.
It is suggested a moderate English revision by an English native speaker in order to polish text from typos and imperfections. Unwanted spacing and typo mistakes throughout the manuscript. Need to be checked and corrected carefully.
Double check the way of adding references in the main text body and reference section as per journal guidelines.
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled "MoS2-Biomoleclues Interaction Serving in MoS2 Based Biomedical Material" Title, abstract and overall rationale of work is written satisfactory. There are major concerns, which needs to be addressed before publication.
1) In the title author need to revise and they need to write full name instead of MoS2 (molybdenum disulfide). Secondly, do not repeat two time MoS2 in the title.
2) This is a review article but in the top there is written Article kindly correct it.
3) The references style is not according to journal in the text. Please correct it.
4) Introduction section is written short and author need to elaborate this section and also more emphasize about the MoS2.
5) After Introduction section the Heading will be change 1.1 instead of 1.
6) The most drawback of this review article is all figures taken from other published papers. No any single figure made by the authors. My question is what is novelty of this review article? What authors want to explain because all these already available. Author need to draw new figure minimum 2-3 figures and also explain what is novelty of this review article.
7) In this review article nothing new and author did not explain and compare more data related to MoS2. During reading I found only two references cited in 2022 and others are before years. The important thing for review article author need to collect all information old, current and explain on the basis of available data unfortunately, I do not find any thing in this review article.
8) Author need to revise whole manuscript and fulfill all comments seriously.
9) Author need to incorporate future direction and what is novelty of this review article.
Need to improve the English quality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Author addressed all comments carefully.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all the concerns raised in the previous version of the manuscript and the quality has much improved after incorporating required modifications. Therefore, the manuscript may be considered for publication in this Journal.
Now English is alright.
