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 June 15th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on July 26th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 20th, 2021 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on September 29th, 2021.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Sep 29, 2021 · Academic Editor

Accept

I have reviewed the revised manuscript and their responses to reviewers’ comments. I think it is not necessary to return it to the reviewers.

Thanks for your revisions, and hope that you continue to submit your work to PeerJ.

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

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jul 26, 2021 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please revise your manuscript to address the reviewers' concerns, and submit a new version at your early convenience. Thanks.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial 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/ #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

1. The report is too long and hence difficult to grasp the main points. Please try to shorten the volume. In the result section for the MTAs, just focus on yield. And you may add those MTAS which are common with yield, days to heading, plant height and TKW. At the end of the day, we will not use any of the QTLs which are not linked to yield for practical breeding purposes.
2. Too many analysis and supplementary data have been presented. But in fact, the main Tables and graphs ( Tables S1, S2) and Figure S2 should be part of the main document.
3. A table showing the yield performance of the top 20 lines along with the parents across the 28 environments could be presented.

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

1. too many analysis but lacks clear reporting. Some of the Tables and Figures should be part of the main document instead of Supplementary.
2. The conclusion part is weak. There are many reports that could lead to a clear recommendation along with the current result. Tell us specifically the MTAs which could be used in marker assisted breeding for yield under moisture stress.

Additional comments

Please try to shorten the volume. In the result section for the MTAs, just focus on yield. And you may add those MTAS which are common with yield, days to heading, plant height and TKW. At the end of the day, we will not use any of the QTLs which are not linked to yield for practical breeding purposes.
2. Too many analysis and supplementary data have been presented. But in fact, the main Tables and graphs ( Tables S1, S2) and Figure S2 should be part of the main document.
3. A table showing the yield performance of the top 20 lines along with the parents across the 28 environments could be presented.

·

Basic reporting

No comment.

Experimental design

No comment.

Validity of the findings

No comment.

Additional comments

This study by Dhakal et al. identified QTLs associated with yield, test weight, heading date and plant height across 28 diverse environments, followed by analyses of QTL pleiotropy and interactions of epistasis, epistasis-by-environment, and additive-by-environment. The field experiments were well designed and phenotypic data were collected and processed appropriately. The consistent QTLs detected in multiple environments would be useful for future cloning and breeding use. This paper was written in a straightforward way and well structured. Care must be taken to correct some minor language problems. In addition, I think that Tables S2 and S3 showed important information so may be included in the main text. Fig. S1c,d are not clear regarding the descriptive statistics.

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.