Reviewer A:

Does the manuscript contain enough significant original material?: 
no

Is the manuscript clearly and concisely written?: 
no

Are the conclusions adequately supported by the data?: 
no

Does the manuscript give appropriate credit to related recent publications?: 
yes

Are the references appropriate and free of important omissions?: 
yes

Is the length of the manuscript appropriate?: 
yes

Does the manuscript need condensation or extension?: 
yes

Is the quality of the figures (including legends and axes labelling) satisfactory?: 
yes

Are the nomenclature and units in accordance with SI?: 
yes

Are the English grammar and syntax satisfactory?: 
yes

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Please indicate the page numbers for suggested corrections.
Please, be as specific as possible if major correction by the author(s) is recommended! : 
Please see pdf file of the manuscript.

REPORT: 
The manuscript by Gašić et al. reports on cyclic voltammetry (CV) application to the analysis of honey samples, intending to prove the method accuracy for determination of total phenolic content in honeys. However, the CV experiments and their analysis have not been performed in a manner to be considered as reliable as it is commented in the pdf review version of the manuscript (uploaded in addition to this form). The authors’ approach is based on simplicity and fastness of the method applied, however, the discussion and conclusions drawn need much more accurate confirmation than that presented in the manuscript. May I suggest the investigation methodology applied in refs. 18–20 which were cited by the authors.
Hence, the manuscript cannot be accepted in the present form, and needs major and thorough additional investigation, confirmations and corrections prior to its consideration for publishing as original scientific paper.

In my opinion, this manuscript should: 
be published after major revision and additional review