Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on May 28th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 14th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on July 27th, 2021 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 14th, 2021.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Aug 14, 2021 · Academic Editor

Accept

All the queries raised by the Reviewers have been addressed, thus the manuscript is being accepted for publication.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

·

Basic reporting

ok

Experimental design

ok

Validity of the findings

ok

Additional comments

Accepted as it is

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jun 14, 2021 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please address the Reviewer's comments. The language of the manuscripts needs editing. The Results, as well as Discussion portions, should be elaborated.

[# 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 #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a response 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 response 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 response letter.  Directions on how to prepare a response letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]

[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor 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) #]

·

Basic reporting

The manuscript need English editing.

Experimental design

OK

Validity of the findings

OK

Additional comments

English should improve by a native person. The paper suffers from a poor English structure throughout and cannot be published or reviewed properly in the current format. The manuscript requires a thorough proofread by a native person whose first language is English. The instances of the problem are numerous and this reviewer cannot individually mention them. It is the responsibility of the author(s) to present their work in an acceptable format. Unless the paper is in a reasonable format, it should not have been submitted.
2. The novelty of the study needs to be highlighted compare to other similar studies.
3. Discussion is weak. The discussion needs enhancement with real explanations not only agreements and disagreements. Authors should improve it by the demonstration of biochemical/physiological causes of obtained results. Instead of just justifying results, results should be interpreted, explained to appropriately elaborate inferences. Discussion seems to be poor, didn't give good explanations of the results obtained. I think that it must be really improved. Where possible please discuss potential mechanisms behind your observations. You should also expand the links with prior publications in the area, but try to be careful to not over-reach. For the latter, you should highlight potential areas of future study.
4. The scientific background of the topic is poor. In "Introduction" and "Discussion", the authors should cite recent references between 2016-2020 from JCR journals.
Fahad, S., Sönmez, O., Saud, S., Wang, D., Wu, C., Adnan, M., Turan, V. (Eds.), 2021a. Plant growth regulators for climate-smart agriculture, First edition. ed, Footprints of climate variability on plant diversity. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Fahad, S., Sonmez, O., Saud, S., Wang, D., Wu, C., Adnan, M., Turan, V. (Eds.), 2021b. Climate change and plants: biodiversity, growth and interactions, First edition. ed, Footprints of climate variability on plant diversity. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Fahad, S., Sonmez, O., Saud, S., Wang, D., Wu, C., Adnan, M., Turan, V. (Eds.), 2021c. Developing climate resilient crops: improving global food security and safety, First edition. ed, Footprints of climate variability on plant diversity. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Fahad, S., Sönmez, O., Turan, V., Adnan, M., Saud, S., Wu, C., Wang, D. (Eds.), 2021d. Sustainable soil and land management and climate change, First edition. ed, Footprints of climate variability on plant diversity. CRC Press, Boca Raton

·

Basic reporting

I must congratulate to the authors of this manuscript for conducting this study, I mean such study are very limited in the literature. I have gone through this article, when I just the file sentence of "ABSTRACT" portion, that confused me, where it is mentioned "making full use of the group effect are the keys to achieving high-efficiency ". This is not clear to anyone, this indicate the re-phrase of such sentence to remove the ambiguity (if any). It allowed me for mentioning that, this article must ne edited for English Native Speaker before publication.
Likewise, the author should elaborate the RESULTS and DISCUSSION portion, and this is possible after see critical review of tables, figure and statistical analysis.

Experimental design

Well designed

Validity of the findings

I have also gone through the data and its statistical analysis, this portion is acceptable to me

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.