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.
The article can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The article is in better shape now and the authors have addressed reviewers' concerns. However, it is recommended that the author should delete excessive self-citation and add clear recommendations in the conclusion section for further evaluation of this work.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
- Some references required in introduction
- Figures 4 and forward, caption requires more information to explain what the panels and symbols represent
N/A
N/A
- In line 50 (straw returning, biochar application, et al.), please check et al or etc?
- Line 62 lacks of additional references, you can use the following recent references for help
https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2020.1718923
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(15)60073-X
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88293-6
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-021-00409-z
- line 120 , please specify the soil depth
- Figures 4 and forward, caption requires more information to explain what the panels and symbols represent.
'Effects of fertilizer and biochar applications on the relationship among soil moisture, temperature, and N2O emissions in farmland' needs improvements as in its present shape it is not appropriate. If authors can redesign the whole article by considering the following points it would be great.
1. Abstract needs to be quantitative
2. Introduction needs to be written by considering what is the problem and how it can be addressed by using different approaches and then approach in this study
3. Methodology needs to be clear with justification why and how
4. Results are not clear. Kindly consider one good article to see how to write results
5. Link results with previous work by giving reasons
6. Conclusion should give final suggestions
[# 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/ #]
I have gone through the manuscript and i found it language unclear .Literature references, sufficient field background/context has not provided.
Research question is not well defined. Methods described with in sufficient detail .
Conclusions are not well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results
I have gone through the manuscript entitled Effects of fertilizer and biochar applications on the relationship among soil moisture, temperature, and N2O emissions in farmland. The author has done work but the author has not represented his work in a perfect way. Already too much data are available on such issue and author should touch new dimension of this field.The language of the manuscript is difficult to understand.
No comment
No Comment
No Comment
Comments in attached pdf
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.