The manuscript represents a good study that was conducted and reported fairly ok. However, authors should consider the following comments:

1. The literature review on the previous anti-diabetic/anti-oxidative pharmacological studies of the plant, as well as the phytochemical reports is not in-depth. It is scanty in its present form. Authors should update. There is no clear problem statement to justify the rationale for the study.
2. Please provide the correct information in most places marked "XXX" in the methods section.
3. Provide information (specimen voucher No; Name of herbarium; Name of botanist) regarding the plant or specimen authentication
4. Provide the Animal Research Ethics approval number for conducting study
5. How many animals were excluded from the study? What was the diabetes induction success rate? Did animals die during the experimental period? These are important information which should be mentioned.
6. Authors should give a valid and good reason why no positive control (known currently used antidiabetic drug) was used in this study and what was the rationale for the dose of the extract chosen in this experiment.
7. Please present the formula of the different indices (HOMA IS, HOMA beta and cardiovascular index) using proper MS word formula for clarity.
8. In the title, please present the scientific name of the plant in full including the authorities
9. Give information on the model and supplier of key instruments or equipment reported or used in the study.
10. Where no kit was used, please provide the information on the protocol for the different analysis, rather that just citations.

Most of the previous comments made have not been addressed. These include:

Comment 1: "The literature review on the previous anti-diabetic/anti-oxidative pharmacological studies of the plant, as well as the phytochemical reports is not in-depth. It is scanty in its present form. Authors should update. There is no clear problem statement to justify the rationale for the study". This comment has not be addressed at all. Authors have completely neglected this comment. The introduction lacks a key problem statement that can validate the rationale for this study. Hence, the novelty and rationale for this study is greatly questioned. It is imperative that the authors address this issue.

Comment 2: "Please provide the correct information in most places marked "XXX" in the methods section". According to the authors' response, I quote: "The journal asked us to remove any information that refers to our address to be anonymous for reviewing process". I don't think the journal was referring to such key information, such as origin of experimental animals, source of plant material, information on the herbarium plant was authenticated and animal facility were experiment was approved and conducted, which have been marked "XXX" in the method section. Authors should confirm this and please provide these key missing information. It is also part of the review process to inquire and validate the information provided by the authors in a manuscript. Moreover, the missing information or facility where a study was conducted does not necessarily imply that is the authors affiliation.

Comment 3: "Provide information (specimen voucher No; Name of herbarium; Name of botanist) regarding the plant or specimen authentication". The requested information has not been provided. Please provide the voucher or authentication reference number given by the herbarium where plant or plant sample was authenticated and not the NCBI taxonomy data base number the authors mentioned. The purpose of authentication by a certified botanist in an herbarium is to confirm and to be certain that the plant you worked with and reported is the correct plant and was correctly identified.

Comment 5: "How many animals were excluded from the study? What was the diabetes induction success rate? Did animals die during the experimental period? These are important information which should be mentioned." Authors should include in-text (in the manuscript) the response they have provided.

Comment 6: "Authors should give a valid and good reason why no positive control (known currently used antidiabetic drug) was used in this study and what was the rationale for the dose of the extract chosen in this experiment." I am not satisfied with response provided by the authors. It did not address the comment.

Comment 7: "Please present the formula of the different indices (HOMA IS, HOMA beta and cardiovascular index) using proper MS word formula for clarity." This comment has not been addressed. It seems like the authors did not understand what was required of them to do. They should simple present the referred formula use MS word formula format instead of writing it as texts. Authors should please act correctly and accordingly.

Comment 8: "Where no kit was used please provide the information on the protocol for the different analysis, rather than just citations." This comment has not been well addressed. At least, authors should provide a brief protocol for key biochemical assays such as measurement of lipid peroxidation and GSH levels and antioxidant enzyme activities so that we can see any modification that was done to optimize the assays. Remember, most researchers search articles every day looking for well reported protocols that they can adopt and introduce to their teams. Thus, a well reported can help increase the citation and impact of your manuscript.