User:LD2023/3D bioprinting/JHer359 Peer Review

General info
LD2023
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:LD2023/3D bioprinting
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):3D bioprinting

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The lead of the original article has been updated to reflect the new content in the draft additions. The lead section is concise, though some sentences could be more specific and include references to support statements (e.g., when mentioning how 3-D bioprinting can produce biofilms useful for a variety of situations, specifying some examples of situations and citing a source or two could be helpful). Aside from rewording the lead section and adding in the sentences relevant for the added content, the lead section is mostly unchanged. The original article's summary of the article's content is variable in detail, with some sections well-summarized and others largely ignored (e.g., the approaches, processes, and printing sections), and this could be an area in which the article could be redrafted too (though it is not relevant to biofilms). The lead section could benefit from continued work, specifically adding more detail and references and ensuring that the lead section summarizes the content of the article as a whole (even in aspects which are unrelated to the drafted changes).

Content: The content focuses on biofilm 3-D printing and its applications (present and future), which is generally relevant and up-to-date. It provides a brief overview of these topics, with variable degrees of detail. The first added paragraph, "3D bioprinting biofilms" appears to have adequate coverage of the content and provides some details regarding the connection between biofilms and bioprinting. This paragraph could be expanded with added detail and explanation, and some phrases could be reworded to facilitate understanding. The second paragraph is extremely brief, and does not provide adequate detail about how biofilms tie into environmental remediation. This could be expanded with additional content (see paper suggestions below for some ideas on sources) and fuller explanation. The final section on future applications is short and contains an uncited statement which could be interpreted as unbalanced (how research has lagged for biofilms).

Tone and Balance: The tone does not seem particularly biased towards a particular position, though terms like "beneficial" could be interpreted as such. Perhaps these terms could be replaced with less evaluative terminology (e.g., replacing "is beneficial" with "could increase efficiency of microbial bioremediation"). The statement about neglect of biofilms in environmental remediation applications is not cited, and may be interpreted as unbalanced in tone. In the interest of balance, it might be helpful to discuss any problems that biofilm printing faces or hazards associated with it.

Sources and References: Most of the new sources are up-to-date and peer-reviewed journal articles, and hence are likely reliable. However, Reference 8 contains only a download link for a video of unspecified origin and content, and does not cite a reliable source for the video in the references section. The presence of an automatic download link in a Wikipedia page could be interpreted as a cybersecurity hazard by the suspicious, and does not provide any direct evidence of reliability to the casual reader. Additionally, while most of the new articles cited in the draft appear to contain content relevant to the citing sentences, I could not find any substantial reference to hydrogels in Reference 1, which focuses on using alginate aerogels as 3-D printing material. Most links work (aside from the download link, as mentioned above). There is a large amount of literature related to microbial bioprinting, and the selected sources may not provide adequate coverage of the many perspectives on this topic (though they seem to provide fairly typical views). The articles referenced could be supplemented, as more recent journal articles are available on this topic as well (a small selection from Google Scholar are shown below, though they should be verified for peer-review before use):

''Ning, E., Turnbull, G., Clarke, J., Picard, F., Riches, P., Vendrell, M., ... & Shu, W. (2019). 3D bioprinting of mature bacterial biofilms for antimicrobial resistance drug testing. Biofabrication, 11(4), 045018.''

''Zhao, T., Liu, Y., Wu, Y., Zhao, M., & Zhao, Y. (2023). Controllable and biocompatible 3D bioprinting technology for microorganisms: Fundamental, environmental applications and challenges. Biotechnology Advances, 108243.''

''Liu, Y., Xia, X., Liu, Z., & Dong, M. (2023). The next frontier of 3D bioprinting: bioactive materials functionalized by bacteria. Small, 19(10), 2205949.''

''Balasubramanian, S., Aubin-Tam, M. E., & Meyer, A. S. (2019). 3D printing for the fabrication of biofilm-based functional living materials. ACS synthetic biology, 8(7), 1564-1567.''

''Bejoy, A. M., Makkithaya, K. N., Hunakunti, B. B., Hegde, A., Krishnamurthy, K., Sarkar, A., ... & Mazumder, N. (2021). An insight on advances and applications of 3d bioprinting: A review. Bioprinting, 24, e00176.''

Organization: The article has some grammatical/typographical errors, and the sentence structure is not constructed for easy reading. Some sentences run on without adequate punctuation, others are very short and do not provide space to cover content in depth. The section on future applications is not significant enough in the overall article to merit its own section. This section should be extended with new sources added and added to the end of the above section rather than given a section of its own.

Images and Media: Existing schematics and media in the article seem to be adequate already, so no comment here.

Overall Impressions: The added content somewhat improves the quality and completeness of the overall article, and it has strong notability and foundations in the literature (reflected in existing references in the draft and in many potential references available online). My main advice is outlined in detail above, but the central points follow below:

- reconstruct the lead section to summarize the entire article, including components unrelated to bioprinting

- reword and expand sentences to provide more specific information from the literature cited, and remove sentences that cannot be cited to source literature

- remove or clarify any sentences which could be seen as evaluative (e.g., references to "beneficial" or "neglect")

- remove or repair Reference 8 to reflect its source and reliability (not auto-download), check that all references are correctly reflected in the citing sentences, and add more supplemental references from existing literature

- restructure and reword sentences to make them more readable and accessible while providing more information, while extending paragraphs with (some) explanations for novice readers.

- extend the future research section and append it to the draft section above (environmental remediation), since it is not extensive or significant enough to be its own section in the overall article