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.
Thank you for your last set of revisions, I am recommending this for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for your revisions. I have made a few typographical corrections. Please see attached PDF. Please attend to these, it should be easy, and then I will recommend this for publication.
The original Academic Editor is no longer available so I have taken over handling your submission.
Both reviewers agree that you manuscript presents interesting work, but there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. There are many places where the writing must be improved for clarity and grammar. Both reviewers have included annotated PDFs with corrections, please pay close attention to these.
[# 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/ #]
[# 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 [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The manuscript is well written and describes the experiments well
The designs of the scientific experiments were well laid out
The results are significant;
The research is current and helps to identify tools to improve plant performance in difficult conditions
The manuscript “Trichoderma longibrachiatum TG1 increases wheat seedlings endogenous salicylic acid content and antioxidants activity under salinity stress” has enough merit to be published in PeerJ, however not in its current format because the text needs some improvement, mainly in the Discussion section.
The work presents the correct experimental design and I agree with the statistical analysis used by the authors.
The work has great merit for study an interesting interaction between plant and fungi aiming to reduces salinity stress.
The authors are to be congratulated for their work, which is of great quality already in this format. I attached a file with comments that can help the authors improve their work.
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.