Reviewer's comment

Reviewer's Comments

1. Contents

• The ethnomedical and/or ethnoveterinary aspects are not clearly outlined in the objectives and conclusion
• No clear objective(s)
• No clear conclusion(s)
• Outside scope of the journal because:
• Activity studied has no relation whatsoever with ethnomedical/ethnoveterinary use of the components studied.
• A pure compound not related to a traditional medicine or natural product was studied.
• Identification of the plant material in doubt:
• No voucher specimen is described.
• No phytochemical profile is described in case of formulated preparation for which no voucher specimen was available (e.g. TLC, HPLC, NMR, GC).
• The activity found is at a dose that has no meaning for actual traditional use.
• No proper controls (positive and negative) were used.

2. Technical points

• The paper is not according to the journal’s format
• References format is wrong (should be: all authors, full title, abbreviation journals).
• Keywords are missing.
• No list of abbreviations
• The full plant name(s) including authors is not given.
• The plant family name is not given.
• Study was not performed according to internationally, nationally and institutionally accepted rules for use of animals or human volunteers.
• Figure(s) and table(s) are presenting the same results.
• Do not repeat in text of results the numerical data already presented in table(s) or figure(s).
• The references in the text are not in the literature list (or the reverse).
• The conclusion are not based on appropriate statistical analysis of the data.
• In the statistics in the tables the data and the standard deviations do not have the same precision (i.e. the number of decimals).
• The language needs extensive improvement.

3. Final Evaluation

The Manuscript is not concisely written.

• Shorter paper to the format of short communication: about 2000-2500 words.
• Scientific value: