The Novelty of mRNA Viral Vaccines and Potential Harms: A Scoping Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This submission aim to evaluate the novelty of mRNA vaccines and potential harms from previous studies about COVID and other coronavirus infections. Potential harms were broken down into mRNA vaccine components and discussed briefly. However, the novelty of mRNA vaccines were poorly described. I suggest authors either use appropriate title or expand the term under the novelty. In addition, most of the examples were given from coronavirus related diseases. Therefore, the title shouldn't be generalized since no mRNA vaccines against cancer or other diseases discussed well. 

There is a section between 53 and 78 need refs where they are lacking. 

The paragraph between 124 and 132 seems doesn't fit in there. 

Followings are repeated in the text, please check and remove them; lines between 181 and 187, lines between 223 and 228, lines between 234 and 239, lines between 245 and 251, lines between 258 and 264, lines between 272 and 279, lines between 288 and 295, lines between 306 and 316. 

Discussion needs some improvement in terms of safety and potential harms of mRNA vaccines, and should evaluate the current and future of vaccine platforms. 

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his or her comments. 

The title has been modified to specify that we are talking about viral vaccines.
The repeated portions have been removed. References have been added to the lines of 53 to 78.

The paragraph of lines 124 to 132 has been merged with the previous paragraph for better flow. 

Discussion has been added to, adding a sentence discussing of other vaccine platforms.

We thank the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

This review aims to present all information and studies relating to the impact of mRNA vaccines on human health, contributing to an overall assessment of this bio-technology . The authors gathered all relating studies and data, however the very poor use of the English language,many "typos style" mistakes  and generally the unrefined way of writing, impoverish the merit of the study. 

I do encourage the authors to make all proper amendments in order to provide a robust and comprehensive manuscript.

In order to better illustrate the above comments, I attach a pdf file. Please see highlights and comments.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his or her thorough comments. 

We have modified the text to add references and change wording as described by the reviewer.

For the section on 'Harms due to exogenous RNA', we do not modify it to 'mRNA' because this RNA in cells is not necessarily translated. 

Thank you

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

The revised manuscript has demonstrated significant improvements in several aspects, including the organization, clarity, and overall quality of the manuscript. In particular, I found the introduction and background sections to be more concise and better focused on the main research question. The revised literature review provides a more comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of the existing literature, and the discussion section has been expanded and improved, providing a more thoughtful and nuanced interpretation of the findings.

 

Sincerely,

Author Response

We heartily thank the reviewer for his or her comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The amended manuscript is far better than the initial submission, however the  the study is still deprived of a sufficient  use of the English language, Please see attached pdf file for more comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx