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.
Based on your English polishing, the manuscript can be accepted for publication
They have revised accordingly
no comment
no comment
The English of the manuscript is very poor (see the attached file for some examples, but this is not comprehensive). Before accepting the manuscript for publication the authors should improve the English very carefully.
[# 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) #]
I have thoroughly checked; the authors have revised the manuscript nicely following comments and suggestions that were made during our first review. They have elaborated the logical explanation under every comments; much appreciated.
Addressed nicely
Will contribute significantly to the scientific community
Now the manuscript has reached to an acceptable standard.
Major modification is needed to make it more meaningful. Please revise the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments.
[# 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. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The English throughout the manuscript is clear, unambiguous, and professional.
There are some suggestions:
1. Write the full form of the abbreviated form such as AAS (line 105) and CV (line 165).
1. It would be great if the results of the control experiment is also mentioned along with the other, for example, mention the concentration of protein and oil in the control experiment in the result section along with the M2 and M3 generations experiment. It would help the readers to understand the concept more clearly.
1. What is the motive for classifying the lines into four categories. How would it be useful and on what basis do the authors classify them? Mention the technique/approach used for the classification.
2. In the discussion, illustrate the possible reasons behind every result based on the literature. For example, mention the possible reason why carbon ion beam irradiation promotes soluble sugar concentration etc.
3. How did the authors confirm that the change in the concentration of all the nutrients is due to the carbon ion irradiation not due to randomness?
Introduction is written very well with appropriate citations.
But very unfortunately the methodology section is almost incomplete. Some of major the limitations I have note here;
Line 68; Why only one variety? By those 3 treatments, their evaluation and just comparing with control of the same variety (and this was irradiated previously, very confusing!) can never be selected to release as a new variety. Then how are you going to compare your findings with the performance of other varieties those might be irradiated with the same doses of CIBR?
Line 68-69; I am fully confused! In this study what you have done; is it just evaluation of previously irradiated lines? Because the methodology is incomplete even, I couldn't get when and how did you apply the different doses of CIBR on the said only variety. And you are just comparing with one treatment to another treatment and the ultimate effect. To me it can never be enough to make decision to release as new a variety.
Line 72; Brief description is needed; how did you apply the treatment (for general readers).
Line 72; No information about plant growth and development, agronomic practices and so on
Line 73-74; If I am not mistaken M0 means non-irradiated seeds, right? So how those seeds were sown according to the irradiation dose? This one is not clear to me.
Line 76-77; Why there are variations in line numbers? In 100 = 47 lines, in 120 = 26 lines and in 140 = 18 lines; why not similar? Is it depending on numbers of survival plants or what? How did you manage the minimum replications? Clear explanation is necessary.
Line 77; Which methodology did you follow? Please cite.
Line 79; How many seeds were sown for M1 and M2 generations, not reported? How did you know that 100 seeds is enough; please cite the authentic references.
Line 149; What does it mean? In 120 Gy you had only 26 lines, so how have you calculated? 26=100% is it or how? Meaning is that you collected/analyzed each and every lines! Nothing is clear from these results.
Line 196; actually, how many is the total numbers? Have you mentioned it anywhere?
Figure 1-4; Is it percentage (%) or what, need to mention. Applicable for all Figures.
Some other minor issues are highlighted/commented in the reviewed pdf copy (attached).
The results and discussion can be accepted but the methodology must need to change.
So, I recommend “Major Revision”.
No information about number of replications!
Detailed reports are given at section 1
Detailed reports are given at section 1
In Abstract and Introduction following comments must be addressed:
Write Iron and Cupper etc at their first mention instead of Fe and Cu
The lines are not easy to comprehend, reframe the sentence “In two generations, the responses of Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu to irradiation doses were diûerent, but the inhibitory eûect on Mn concentration was enhanced as the irradiation dose was raised”
Authors must address the following comments:
How many seeds were irradiated with each dose of gamma rays?
In which design seeds were planted
How many seeds were sown to raise M2 and M3 generation?
Also mention season of sowing and season of harvesting for each generation.
Add detailed methodology for protein and oil content evaluation
The discussion section must be elaborated and the findings of the present study must be put in light of the recent literature. A conclusion section must be added to emphasize the main findings of your present 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.