审稿意见模板-拒稿

The authors developed a biodegradable PLA/Gelatin/PLA multi-layered film for food packaging and investigated the physical properties of the film in comparison with gelatin and PLA mono-layered films. This multi-layered film, however, is very similar to films prepared in Ref.2 (J. F. Martucci, R. A. Ruseckaite, J. Applied Polym. Sci. 118, 3102–3110 (2010) ). Material and structure of the film were no innovation, and the solution casting method, which was used in this study, showed no significant advantage in film properties compared to previous method in former research. In a whole, the paper cannot be accepted due to lack of novelty

Other comments:

1. The full name of PLA should be given in Abstract when mentioned for the first time.

2. The polymerization degree of PLA might have strong influence on the properties of the film, and should be included in the Materials part.

3. In Section 3.2, the authors stated that “All film types were developed with the same total solid content in this study”, which should be mentioned in the Method part.

4. Table 3, the authors mentioned that all the data was collected from five samples. Error bar of each data should be given in the table.

5. In Section 3.1, authors stated that “Control gelatin film exhibited more uniform and fibrillar structure. However, PLA film had more compact

structure without pores, cracks or agglomerates. This result was in agreement with the higher tensile strength of PLA film, compared with gelatin film.”according to Figure 2. However, the structure features mentioned could not be recognized in the figure. Markings or more detailed explanations should be added. Besides, the statement “This result was in agreement with the higher tensile strength of PLA film, compared with gelatin film.” should be given in Section 3.3.

6. Section 3.9, most of this section was a display of FT-IR spectra data. Is this part necessary for this paper?

Recommendation: Do not publish