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.
In the process of revisions, both reviewers have recommended Acceptance.
In the last revision round only language editing was requested and the author has completed this editing. Therefore this article can now be Accepted.
Please remove the sections related to preparation of gallic acid stock, sodium carbonate solution and FCR.
Authors should merge Fig. 1 with Fig. 2.
Figures and Tables should be self-explanatory.
English quality is still a matter of concern. Authors should improve the quality of the English with the help of a proficient English speaker.
[# 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) #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
Dear Author
the manuscript has now improved a lot
thanks for your efforts
Best Regards
Authors should carefully address the comments/suggestions of the Reviewer # 1.
[# 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: The review process 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) #]
The Manuscript still needs extensive English Editing
no comment
no comment
Dear Author
I appreciate the efforts that you made to improve the manuscript, but from my point of view, I see that the quality of the paper still needs deep corrections
- Firstly, the manuscript needs more English editing
- Secondly, I still see that it is crucial to support the results by measuring more physiological, Agronomic, and yield-related traits. The author mentioned that there are economic problems, but I see that the main cost was already paid when the author started the experiment and followed up on it. At harvest time, the author was able to collect all the essential parameters that he wanted without paying any additional costs. At the same time, I see that the General Directorate of Agricultural Research already funds the work. I think the reason that the author mentioned is not logical. The author just recorded two yield traits (Grain yield and Days to 50% tassel day), which is insufficient.
- Thirdly, I see that the author insisted on presenting the result in two different ways, which is entirely wrong. From my point of view, the data that any researcher has must be presented in just one method in the manuscript (tables OR figures OR charts…etc.), this is the logical way to show the results, but if the author uses several methods to exhibit the results, this reflects that the author wants to make the manuscript longer. In the case of this manuscript, I ultimately do not see any additional information that the reader can extract from the following figures
Figure No 1 same information in Table No 1(Average maximum temperature)
Figure No 4 same information in Table No 6 (Total phenols)
Figure No 5 same information in Table No 5 ( (Chlorophyll a ) and Table No 6 ( (CMD )
- Fourth, I suggested different sentences and paragraphs in the discussion section for the author to cite with proper reference, but he did not include any new references. For example, the following paragraph must be cited by a suitable reference.
(The leaves are the plant organelles most affected by stress conditions, and they contain important information about the level of stress. High temperature causes water loss in the leaves, decrease the fluid of the cytoplasm organelle in the plant cell, and decreases in the flexibility of the cell membranes. In addition, the chloroplast organelles are adversely affected. The plant leaves were wilted, shrunk, and curled inward in the year and period when the stress was more dominant. Despite the aforementioned protective reflexes, the water carried from the root region cannot compensate for the amount of water lost by transpiration in the leaves)
Best Regards
After reviewing for once now the corrected version is pretty good.
For two years field research the design was okay. Although authors could have accumulate some more parameters for the confirmation of their results.
No comment
Author should address the following issues in addition to Reviewer's suggestions:
1. Figures legends should be self-explanatory. Please avoid writing methodology in the Figure/Table legends
2. Figures quality are not up to the standard. Please revise all the figures and improve the quality. Please check the title of X-axis and Y-axis of each figure
3. Units of different parameters must be checked again for uniformity.
4. Author must present the number of replications for each parameter. Each figure and table should contain the Statistical Error or standard deviations.
5. Authors should also discuss their own findings in the light of other available findings.
6. Please remove Equation number from each formula. Authors must double-check each formula and clearly define each term available in the formula.
[# 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: The review process 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) #]
The article is written in English and clear. Moreover, it includes a sufficient introduction and background
The M&M was described with sufficient information
The findings need to be supported with more traits
The manuscript titled (Physiological and biochemical responses of hybrid maize (Zea mays L.) varieties grown under heat stress conditions) by TAS studied the physiological and biochemical responses of hybrid corn varieties under heat stress and controlled growing periods in two different seasons.
The paper is generally well written and structured. However, there are minor English, punctuations corrections, and several suggestions and questions in the attached file
However, one of the essential concerns in this manuscript is why the author just measured these traits Leaf water potential, Grain yield, Chlorophyll-a, Days to 50% tassel (day), Cell membrane damage, and Total phenol content?
Why the author does not measure other physiological, Agronomic, and yield-related traits that can be supported and confirm the results as (Leaf senescence, plant height, Inter-nodal length (INL), No. of ears per plant, cob girth, cob length, kernels per row and number of kernel rows per cob ……etc
Measuring different parameters is very useful to support the results, especially since the author already did two growing seasons, and it was possible to measure these traits at their suitable times
In addition, I am hight recommended to do the principal component analysis to support the correlation results
After the authors address these comments, the article will be suitable for possible publication in Peer J
The English is not professional enough, it can be improved and presented in better way.
The authors could do some specific stress-responsive analyses, like as determination of reactive oxygen species.
No comments.
The authors should be more careful about the scientific issues like as the presentation of the scientific name should be italic.
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.