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.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on August 10th, 2021 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 20th, 2021.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 30th, 2021 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 1st, 2021.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Oct 1, 2021 · Academic Editor


The authors have significantly modified the manuscript, following the reviewers' comments.

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

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Sep 20, 2021 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Two experts in the field reviewed your manuscript and raised some concerns that need to be addressed.

[# 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: #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

This article introduces the degradation of lignocelluloses in straw using AC-1, a thermophilic composite microbial system. This article introduces the exogenous inoculants. AC-1 on the degradation efficiency of rice straw at different temperature and materials, which provides major theoretical basis for further application of AC-1.
It is interesting study for degrading straw based on exogenous thermophilic composite microbes. However, some details need attention.

Experimental design

1. Line 15-16: the degradation of lignocellulose in straw is problematic, what is the problem? Please state clearly.
2. The experimental design is unclear and the logic is confusing.
3. what is simple and complex cellulose materials?
4. Line 49-50: Please revise, “complex mechanism of lignocellulose” changed to “complex structure of lignocellulose”
Materials & Methods
5. The rice straw is pretreated by NaOH method, please explain why. Are the subsequent series processed with NaoH?
6. Line 79-81: “filter paper broken” refer to enzyme activity or which medium? What is the carbon source?
7. Screening strains and culture degradation experiments are not clear, please revise carefully.
8. Is DGGE at different temperatures or different carbon sources?

Validity of the findings


Additional comments

Results and discussion
9. Line 118-119: “the content of rice straw” refer to what?
10. Figure 3 is inconsistent with the material method introduced
11. Line 133-134: Genus level should be in italics.
12. The article did not introduce those a thermophilic composite microbial system that are related to temperature or at are related to carbon sources, which can be further explored. The dominant microorganisms at different temperatures or different carbon sources should be further studied. Please discuss the changes in microorganisms in detail. There is no CK treatment in the article.


Basic reporting

The idea of using AC-1 for lignocellulose degradation is necessary because the substrate is resistant to degradation. Because the research site is in a cold climate and is not conducive to the growth of microorganisms necessary for the decomposition of rice straw, the researcher must show references from journals in a reliable database that AC-1 is cultured and capable of degrading lignocellulose at temperatures near 0 °C.

Experimental design

The experimental objectives should be consistent with the experimental scope. The researcher had to demonstrate that, in this investigation, AC-1 could actually decompose lignocellulose from rice straw. The process of preparing AC-1 from pig manure (lines 78-86) should be reliably attributed to either the method itself developed or a derivative of any researcher's research (Show references).
The information from the introductory section, the researcher wanted to decompose AC-1 with rice straw, which contains the chemical composition of lignocellulose (lignin bonded cellulose), but the experimental design process was seemed likely that the researcher takes AC-1 to decompose commercial compounds of lignocellulose. Researchers should describe whether they wish to directly decompose lignocellulose from rice straw or to experiment with the above constituents for future applications.

Validity of the findings

From the experimental design and the results, the investigator used the GC for analysis which measured the volatile organic acids and assumed that the experimental results were converted to a reduced total lignocellulose content. In this case, the investogators should explain in the experimental design part and show references.

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.