PONE-D-25-12992Novel Linalool-Silver Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Characterization, and Dual Approach Evaluation via Computational Docking and Antibacterial AssaysPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Khan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 17 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Pankaj Thakur

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements: 

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf .

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript titled "Novel Linalool-Silver Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Characterization, and Dual Approach Evaluation via Computational Docking and Antibacterial Assays" by Khan et al. presents a potentially interesting study. However, before consideration for publication, the following major revisions are required:

1. The abstract is overly lengthy and should be made more concise. Please focus primarily on the key results and implications. Avoid extensive background or methodological detail in this section.

2. The introduction is too brief and lacks depth. It should be expanded to provide a more comprehensive background of the topic. Additionally, please incorporate recent references from 2024 and 2025 to reflect the current state of research and strengthen the rationale of the study.

3. The figures provided are of low resolution, and the embedded text is not legible. Please replace all figures with high-resolution versions (minimum 300 DPI) to ensure clarity and readability.

4. In my opinion, the Results and Discussion sections should be presented together rather than separately. Integrating these sections will allow for a more cohesive interpretation of the findings and help the reader better understand the significance of the results in context.

5. A detailed comparison of the present results with previously published studies is necessary and discusses how this work advances the field.

6. The manuscript’s language lacks fluency in certain sections. It requires substantial improvement in grammar, sentence structure, and scientific expression. A professional English editing service is recommended.

7. The conclusion section is too brief and lacks a comprehensive summary of the study’s key findings, implications, and future directions. The authors are advised to expand this section to clearly highlight the major results, significance of the work, and potential applications.

The study has potential but requires significant improvement in structure, language, presentation, and scientific depth. Addressing the above points will enhance the clarity, impact, and rigor of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript explores the synthesis and characterization of linalool-functionalized silver nanoparticles (LN@AgNPs) and evaluates their antimicrobial activity via both in vitro assays and in silico molecular docking studies. The combination of natural essential oil-based nanoconjugates with silver nanoparticles is an important area of research, particularly in the context of increasing antibiotic resistance. The study is methodologically sound, and the manuscript is generally well-structured. However, a number of issues related to clarity, data interpretation, and scientific depth need to be addressed before this manuscript can be considered for publication.

1. The particle size distribution is highly polydisperse (ranging from ~9 to 680 nm). This raises concerns about batch uniformity, which affects biological reproducibility.

2.Regarding FT IR spectra-Include complete spectra and assign peaks precisely.

3. Regarding Antibacterial Assays-Positive controls (AZM) are included, but no comparison with standard AgNPs was provided.

4. Regarding Grammar & Language: The manuscript contains several grammatical and typographical errors. Some examples:

“...make it more potential...” → should be “...makes it more potent...”

“...examined for antibacterial in-silico and in-vitro studies...” → revise for clarity.

Kindly provide the appropriate answers to the above suggestions

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  ANKUSH GUPTA

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Novel Linalool-Silver Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Characterization, and Dual Approach Evaluation via Computational Docking and Antibacterial Assays

PONE-D-25-12992R1

Dear Dr. Khan,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Pankaj Thakur

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: The manuscript titled “Novel Linalool-Silver Nanoparticles: Synthesis, Characterization, and Dual Approach Evaluation via Computational Docking and Antibacterial Assays” presents the synthesis of linalool-conjugated silver nanoparticles and evaluates them using both computational docking and antibacterial assays. The study is well-designed and methodologically sound, addressing a significant area of nanobiotechnology with important biomedical implications. By integrating in silico docking studies with in vitro antibacterial assays, the authors provide a comprehensive evaluation that enhances the impact of their work. The nanoparticles are thoroughly characterized through UV-Vis, FTIR, SEM, XRD, DLS, and zeta potential analyses, effectively demonstrating their stability and uniformity. Antibacterial activity is assessed systematically against both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial strains, with clear evidence that LN@AgNPs exhibit superior performance compared to free linalool. The discussion is well-structured, successfully integrating findings with relevant literature and underscoring the novelty of linalool-conjugated AgNPs as antimicrobial agents. The manuscript has also been meticulously revised in response to earlier reviewer feedback, resulting in improvements in figure quality, language fluency, and organization. Importantly, there are no ethical concerns associated with this work, and the “N/A” declaration for animal and human studies is appropriate. The authors clearly state that no funding was received and declare no competing interests. The manuscript appears original, with no evidence of dual publication or overlap with prior work. Overall, this is a well-executed and clearly presented study that contributes valuable insights to the field of nanomaterial-based antibacterial therapies. The findings convincingly demonstrate the potential of linalool-silver nanoconjugates as effective antimicrobial agents, supported by robust evidence from both computational and experimental approaches. I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript in its present form.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #3: No

**********