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.
Thanks, your manuscript is now accepted in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage. #]
For instance, the Section Editot noted:
> The manuscript is still very verbose. Just one example from the conclusions (first sentence) " The results of this study found that there were no significant differences..", could be written as "We found no significant differences..." or as "The study showed no significant differences...'.
The authors have failed to address many typographical and English style requirements for publication in PeerJ. Please use an editorial proofing service to polish your manuscript.
[# 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) #]
Please provide a revised version addressing the editorial comments and a detailed rebuttal letter.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process 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) #]
1. Spelling and grammar should be carefully checked. e.g. spelling of "Figure"; line452, extra period; line533 understory
2. Abbreviations should be spelled out when it is first used in the article. e.g. line65, TCM.
3. I would suggest the author label the significance level in Table2 like in Table3.
4. Two supplemental tables have the same title.
1. Line176: "ITS1-5F region" should be "ITS1 region". 5F is the primer.
2. Canonical correspondence analysis should be described in methods part.
3. Fertilizer patterns should be moved from discussion to methods part. Also, fertilization rate data is missing.
In the discussion part, there are some redundant sentence repeating the results part. I would suggestion the author check carefully and remove the redundant part. e.g. line534-539, the results showed in Table2 was already described.
Please provide a comprehensively revised version addressing the editorial comments and a detailed rebuttal letter.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process 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) #]
Dear authors, the manuscript Effects of growing Coptis chinensis Franch in natural understory vs. manmade scaffolding on its growth, alkaloid contents, and rhizosphere soil microenvironment
presents a good contribution in the field, however, it is important that you consider the following:
In general, the spelling and writing of the manuscript must be checked.
Review the format of table 3.
Add some sentences of rationale to the beginning of your abstract.
The changes observed in the alkaloid profile are not discussed.
No comment
What do you conclude about the changes that were observed in the alkaloid profile?
a. Some expressions are not concise and need to be refined. For example, line64-72 could be shortened.
b. The authors need to include more background information and reference in “Introduction”. For example, line55-80 should at least discuss previous studies on alkaloids from Coptis chinensis Franch.
c. Table/figure should be referred in your results part. Otherwise, it is hard to follow.
d. Table 4-7: it is better to show RDA results with figures. Tables could be moved to supplementary data.
e. Quality of Figure5-8 should be improved.
f. Some figures could be combined. For example, Figure9 and Figure10 could be combined into one Figure X. Figure X-A refers to Figure9 and Figure X-B refers to Figure10.
a. Reference is needed for some methods: line109-“cutting-ring method”; line112-“five-point method”; line141-“potassium dichromate oxidation-volumetric method”; line142- “Kjeldahl method”, etc.
b. Line164-166: 515F/806R can only target 16S rRNA V4 region. What primers did you use to target all other regions? Primer sequence information should be included.
c. ITS database reference should be mentioned.
d. Line412: RDA analysis should be described in Materials and Methods part.
a. Since fertilization was discussed as a key factor, data on fertilization should be provided to support your conclusion.
b. Line530: species or class? Line532: species or class?
c. Line589: soil pH could also be influenced by the microbial community.
d. Alkaloid contents were mentioned in the Title and Abstract part but barely mentioned in Discussion and Conclusion.
A lot of data was provided and analyzed in this study. I recommend the authors to refine the manuscript to make it concise and consistent.
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.