Comments on abstract, title, references

About Title: 1. Chosen title is not attractive and doesn't show the importance of the study and is not enough to encourage the reader to read it. 2. Surface Reactivity and Biocompatibility are so natural and typic properties of stable nanoparticles, so mentioning of these properties is not attractive to browse the contents of the article.

About Abstract: 90% of abstract is about "What was done technically". The reader need to know aim of the study and finding conclusion descriptions. The useful and important part of the study is not mentioned for reader and don't present the specific points.

About introduction/background: Introduction beginning is simple and come from our basic knowledge. Better to use specific words and present their aims. Introducing of CeO2 and Y2O3 nanoparticles is not continuously and convincing to accept this fact that these types of nanoparticles should be in the center of attention. The whole introduction should be rewrite in the correct clear and connected paragraph's format.

About methodology: 1. in section 4.2: Yttrium Oxide nanoparticles did not explained for its contents in detailed. The report of color and TEM size should not notice here. The important part of the study is nanoparticle's contents and properties that sis not reported. 2. The mechanism of each method should be stated. This aim noticed in apoptosis measurement method only. 3. All methods referenced to a protocol. It seems so boring and unclear in how the tests applied. 4. Why two different carcinoma cell line were chosen? Better to focus on one carcinoma in detail.

About data and results: 1. Better and valuable to show the Zeta potential and size information in graphic data instead of table data. 2. The time period for surface reactivity test stated 6 and 24 hour. What is the reason of this decision? Why the other time points omitted? 3. Better to see the results in instrument data set mode, not only with drawn tables. 4. Better to proof the apoptosis and autophagy data with numerical tests such as flowcytometer.

About discussion and conclusions: The authors did not mention the limitations and future study plan types.

Overall comment: The paper is not generally structured. Because of complicated introduction part and so briefly written methodology and unclear discussion part. I feel these unique data has not been utilized to its full extent.