Recent Development of Biomaterials Combined with Mesenchymal Stem Cells as a Strategy in Cartilage Regeneration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This review is relevant to the journal audience but reads it like an introduction to a PhD thesis. A lot of information is well-known and covered in numerous previous reviews. This makes the opening parts of the review (parts 1-3) redundant. These parts should be removed or significantly shortened (to 1-2 pages). The remaining parts should be condensed by shortening free text and presenting information in relevant tables (similar to Table 1 on polymers). The figure is very much cartoon-like and more suitable for a school text book than professional journal publication. The conclusions are overall relevant and contain several new ideas particularly in terms of computer assisted algorithms, but again the writing should be more logical and split into separate paragraphs around key ideas. Moderate English editing required, see in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your comments. They are helpful and beneficial. The manuscript has been revised accordingly and highlighted:

1. Parts 1 and 2 have been significantly shortened and combined into one. Part 3 (now part 2) has also been trimmed down. The context is now within 2 pages.
2. The other parts have also been shortened. Table 2 and Table 3 are added to summarise the key features of each subchapter. 
3. Figure 1 has been removed as it is not informative and professional enough.
4. Conclusion has been re-written for a better structure.
5. English has been edited.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors/editors,

this is a rather comprehensive review on the current concepts on biomaterials used on osteoarthritis models and patients. It covers all current research that is accessible and provides future perspectives on the combined used of various biomaterials and MSCs. In general, it is a publishable-worthy manuscript. I would suggest the formation of condensed tables which can visually summarize the main materials, along with the significant findings. This would enable the future reader of this extended manuscript to easily visualise the important points.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for your comments. They are helpful and beneficial. The manuscript has been revised accordingly and highlighted:

1. New Table 2 and Table 3 have been added to summarise the key features of each chapter. 
2. English and some other context have been shortened and edited into a better structure.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been shortened and new tables added. However, Tables 2 and 3 should be made similar to Table 1 and contain separate columns for supporting References - please add. Additionally, English language needs significant editing by a professional editor, throughout the whole manuscript. No significant improvements are so far seen on the first revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments. Revisions have been made accordingly:

1. The part numbers in Tables are now matched with text;
2. Table titles have been revised;
3. References have been added to Table 2 and 3;
4. English has been massively proofread and improved.

Sincerely,
Jishizhan