All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Reviewers in the field have evaluated your revised manuscript. Based on the reviewer’s comments, your manuscript was significantly improved. So, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript is accepted for publication in PeerJ.
No comment
Satisfactory
Explained well
There is no further change required for this manuscript.
Language is thorough throughout the manuscript.
The corrections made in the manuscript was content.
No comment.
The corrections made in the manuscript was content and clear.
Dear Dr. Wang
The manuscript (ID 52176), entitled "Optimizing the amount of pig manure in the vermicomposting of spent mushroom (Lentinula) substrate )", was reviewed by experts in the field, and the reviewers have raised some issues. Your manuscript needs to be significantly improved according to the reviewer's comments before it is processed further.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Language is perfect throughout the manuscript.
References should need to include.
Article structure and tables are clear but need correction in figures.
Modification should be needed
Modification should be needed
Line number 90-91: include the relevant references and discuss about the issues of other studies.
Line number 107 – 109: include the analytical method
Lin2 112 – 116 – Experimental design is confusing. Did you analyzed the C/N ratio after mixing SMS with pig manure? Or the mixing ratio is based on separately measured C/N ratio of CMS and pig manure? How the C/N ratio reduced with increasing volume of pig manure or decreasing volume of CMS?
Line 118 – 121: Juvenile or adult worms? Worm used with empty gut content? Include the average weight per worm. How to maintain 60-80% humidity, any temperature control chamber used? Add all details.
Figure 1 and 2: Figure doesn’t mean anything without pointing. Physical characteristics means solid particles? Is that dark indicating the solid particles figure 1? Point with arrow mark in images. All images in figure 2 (A-E) is 5 µm size except 2F which is 10 µm, why?
Line 279 – 280: statement standing alone is meaningless, combined with previous line (line 277 to 280).
Correlation (ratio of feed mixture, worm growth and other compost parameters) study should be need for getting more clear conclusive evidence of the results.
The manuscript deals with the study of optimizing the ratio of pig manure addition in SMS vermicomposting based on the comprehensive consideration of physical, chemical, and biological parameters.
According to the authors, the S2 treatment showed optimal processing in SMS vermicomposting and pig manure addition through various factors which includes suitable C/N ratio, higher PPO activities and degradation rate of lignin.
There are a couple of small details that I consider should be addressed before publication:
In line 203 --> check the units.
Fig 1 and 2 --> mention the images either in lowercase or uppercase.
No comment.
In fig 3 (f) you have shown the graphical representation of PPO activity. Can you explain why the S4 treatment shown a drastic decline from 42nd to 56th day.
Each part of the submitted manuscript: the introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, and the conclusion are well described. The work is well designed and is well performed. The experimental results and the conclusions are pertinent and supported by the results.
However, the English should be checked again.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.