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 January 20th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 22nd, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on March 4th, 2022 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 13th, 2022.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Mar 13, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

I concur with the reviewers that significant enhancements have been made to the manuscript allowing it to now be accepted for publication. This is especially the case with the revised figure legends.

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

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

The Author improved the paper carefully, Now the paper could be accepted for publication.

Best Regards

Experimental design

Well

Validity of the findings

Well

·

Basic reporting

Authors have addressed all the comments and suggestions made in earlier review report. All the corrections are satisfactory and the manuscript can be accepted in its current form.

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Feb 22, 2022 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

I agree with the reviewers that some revisions are in order before this manuscript can be considered further for publication. Please carefully address each of the reviewers’ comments when resubmitting your manuscript. The primary concern was that there were several grammatical issues that need attention.

Reviewer 1 has suggested that you cite specific references. You are welcome to add it/them if you believe they are relevant. However, you are not required to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.

[# 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 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 copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Comments for Author,

In this paper, The Author tries to explore the " Nickel mine soil is a potential source for soybean plant growth-promoting and heavy metal tolerant rhizobia". The paper is the scope of Peerj. However,
I have some comments before accepting this paper.

Comments for Author,

These sentences need more related papers. to improve please support it. " Heavy metal
contamination is a risk to food security, ecological environment, and even to human health
through bioaccumulation in the food chain" a- https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89984-4_19

This below sentences make no sense;

In this study, through the cultivation experiment of soybean plant in nickel mine soil, we
aimed to find effective plant growth promoting and heavy metal resistant strains to facilitate
phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated soil.

Please rewrite the above sentences.

Please give the coordinate of soil that the Authors collected.

Plant growth ability test section should be reduced. There are some confusion

Best Regards

Experimental design

The design of the experiment was acceptable.

Validity of the findings

The results are reasosable.

·

Basic reporting

In the current study, authors have isolated plant growth promoting symbiotic strains from nickel mine soils with the idea of using such isolates for phytoremediation. The manuscript is well written with detailed description of the methods and proper interpretation of the results.

Few minor suggestions/corrections are detailed in the edited version of the manuscript. Please address them.

Experimental design

All the research questions are well defined and authors have conducted all the necessary experimentals to support their study.

Validity of the findings

The result are well represented and all the necessary raw files were provided.
However, it would be good to include the sequencing files as a word or text file in a zip format so that it is easily accessible.
Authors should include title and figure legends or footnotes for all the tables and figures wherever applicable along with the abbreviations.

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.