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.
Authors corrected the manuscript considering all suggestions and comments, and the revised version reads much better and clear now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The revised version reads much clear and better than the previous one. However, as highlighted by the reviewer it still needs some minor corrections. Kindly do the needful and submit the revision.
The written English is clear and professional English used throughout the article. However, more recent literatures (recent 5 years) should be cited to replace old references.
The experimental design was reasonable and could support the research goal.
There are some new findings in the result. Conclusions are clear and related to objectives.
1. Please verify why 0-40 cm soil layer was selected in this study。
2. Please include important numbers in the abstract.
3. The methods to analyze N-mineralizing enzyme activities should be stated more, only one sentence is not enough to gain efficient knowledge.
4. Authors should note that the year when the experiment was started should be listed and the basic soil properties were lacked, please supply these data.
5. Try to discuss with recent literatures, i.e., published from 2016.
Manuscript language has been improved with review.
Necessary changes in experimental results have been made according to suggestions from reviewers. Reviewed manuscript fits desired objectives of the investigation.
No comments
No comments
Please go through the reviewer's constructive comments, including about some language editing issues, discussions and figures. Kindly revise your manuscript considering those comments and resubmit your manuscript.
[# 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) #]
1. There are some grammar errors through the manuscript, authors should improve the wriiten English. If available, please ask a native speaker to help.
2. Not enough background and knowledge gap, authors should improve the introduction section.
3. The structure, figures and tables are fine.
4. Last but not least,nitrate reductase, and nitrite reductase are not N-mineralizing enzymes. This makes this manuscript not suitable to be published.
The experiment was designed reasonable. However, the authors classified nitrate reductase, and nitrite reductase into wrong group.
The results are meaningful to understand how carbon and nitrogen change after straw return. But from the title, the results of carbon took too much pages. "Soil N-mineralizing enzyme activities " included two unrelated enzymes. The wrong classification of enzymes directly resulted wrong conclusions.
1. Please note that nitrate reductase, and nitrite reductase are not N-mineralizing enzymes. They are denitrification enzymes.
2. Try to find a native speaker to improve the written English.
3. The disscussion section should be clearer, it is hard to read now.
4. Try to include carbon in the title or delete some results on carbon.
5. Please re-draw figure 2. Do not merge the sub-figures.
The manuscript is well organized and unambiguous. Language used in the manuscript is up to professional standards. Introduction is oriented in towards specific goals of the study. Results are structured properly with matching figures and tables. Manuscript is written with proper references.
Experimental methods are thoroughly described and well within standards of the field. Methods used in the investigation are well known in the field to address the questions of the agriculture related study. Overall the investigation is supported by well documented methods.
Conclusions drawn in the study are supported by results described in the manuscript. Conclusions are made from statistical significant results.
The manuscript entitled “Effect of cotton residues incorporation on soil organic nitrogen fractions and nitrogen-mineralizing enzyme activity under long-term continuous cotton cropping” shows interesting results and presents important agricultural study of soil organic nitrogen, organic carbon and nitrogen-mineralizing enzyme activities.
Authors are requested to explain following results.
Line 245-246: The numbers described for protease, nitrate reductase and nitrite reductase do not match those described in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Significant increase in 15a compared to 10a has not been observed for protease, urease, nitrate reductase and nitrite reductase activities. While significant increase has been observed for 10a and 20a compared to 5a for all enzyme activities except nitrate reductase. Is there a specific reason for this discrepancy for 15a results?
Typological corrections:
Figure 2: Two panels are labelled as Protease activities. On of them has to be for nitrite reductase.
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.