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 June 13th, 2022 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 28th, 2022.
  • The first revision was submitted on July 14th, 2022 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on July 19th, 2022.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Jul 19, 2022 · Academic Editor

Accept

All the comments and suggestions of the reviewers have been addressed and the manuscript has been revised accodingly

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

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jun 28, 2022 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Dear Authors

Reviewers have now commented on your manuscript. They suggest a Major Revision. Kindly revise your paper as per the suggestions of the reviewers.

[# 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. #]

·

Basic reporting

Manuscript Number - (#74412) : In this paper, Author has demonstrated the “ Soil microbial community and physicochemical properties together drive soil organic carbon in Cunninghamia lanceolata plantations of different stand ages” The work is interesting, but following queries must be resolved before it publishing in the Journal.

 In Abstract- What is the means of microbial community composition? Some details of microbial community also mention.
 Kindly mention significant role of your work in abstract.
 In introduction –add some lines about Cunninghamia lanceolata plant.
 Authors should mention the description of the microbes
 In Methodology - Line 107-111 rewrite.
 In the section of “ Study site and soil sample collection” add references
 Add full form of PLFAs
 In result-Mention the name and species of microbial community
 The references used in this study are very old, mostly 2000-2003-2005,2009, 2011which
 should be updated
 After 2015 References add in MSS
 In figure 2,3 the statistically significant difference between all the treatments should be
Mentioned with different alphabets such as a, b, c, ab, cd……..
 Table 1, 2. mention the heading of first Colum

In last, this manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.

Experimental design

comment mention above.

Validity of the findings

Done

Additional comments

As per the title, please see your full MSS

·

Basic reporting

Please consider all PeerJ criteria to prepare the final style of manuscript structure.

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

in uploaded annotated PDF file

Additional comments

in uploaded annotated PDF file

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.