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.
All earlier comments have been satisfactorily addrerssed in the revised version.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear author
I have thoroughly checked your manuscript and found some major points which should be modified accordingly. First, the language of the manuscript should be improved or checked by a proficient English speaker to make it more relevant. Then, the authors should modify the comments which are included in the PDF of the manuscript attcahed below.
[# 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) #]
Suggested queries satisfied by authors in revised version
improved as per suggestions
Reproducible and and revised
NIL
Revise the manuscript as per the suggestions of the reviewers and resubmit for consideration.
[# 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. #]
Change required as per suggestion in pdf
Designing is ok
East timor has recently entered in cashew cultivation hence outcome of experiment will help the researchers to improve its production
The English needs to be improved. Text contains some inaccuracies.
My comments were given with track change along the manuscript
Ditto
A few discussion points were found in result section! These need to be moved to discussion.
The discussion section is unnecessarily long! You need to be more concise and focus on main findings. This section could be reduced by at least half in size.
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.