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 January 13th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on March 22nd, 2022.

Version 0.1 (accepted)

· Mar 22, 2022 · Academic Editor


Dear Authors,
I am pleased to inform you that the article is recommended for publication.

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

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

I have improved the English in some areas but otherwise fine.

Excellent understanding and use of germination, speed of germination.

References and background are fine.

Very good professionalism throughout.

The manuscript was self-contained as you define it.

Experimental design

This was all good.

Validity of the findings

This is fine.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The manuscript entitled "Acidity and availability of aluminum, iron, and manganese as factors affecting germination in European acidic dry and alkaline xerothermic grasslands" study the germination ecology of 10 species from acidic dry grasslands and 10 species from alkaline xerothermic grasslands.

The paper is very interesting. English is written correctly.

Experimental design

The materials and methods section is written clearly and in detail.

The results are also explanatory and clearly written.

Validity of the findings

Conclusions are well stated, linked to the original research question & limited to supporting results.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

No comment.

Experimental design

No comment.

Validity of the findings

No comment.

Additional comments

The introduction has a review appropriate to the topic. The hypotheses are valid and the scientific questions are related to the hypotheses.
The materials and methods used were adequate. The selection of botanical material was judicious, preliminary tests aimed at reducing uncontrolled errors. The experimental design followed scientific rigor.

=>Table 1: On the first line some words are improperly broken.

The results were satisfactorily presented and discussed.
Several data were generated by the experiments and analyzed by parametric, non-parametric and multivariate statistical methods.
The research findings brought new knowledge about xerothermic germination in European grasslands.
The conclusions are supported by the research developed.

The article is recommended for publication.

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.