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.
Some minor revisions are required before acceptance.
1. New references needs to be added to replace the older references.
2. The references are not properly cited. Incomplete references needs to be rectified as for e.g. reference no. 25, 32, 34, 35. This needs to be rectified throughout the MS.
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
Adequate
The authors have addressed previous concerns in the earlier revision.
Revise the manuscript as per the comments of the reviewers and resubmit for consideration.
1. The previous comment has not been addressed “The introduction section should be drafted so as there is a continuity in the flow of data.” Redraft the starting sentence of the paragraph “Effects of temperature and day length are mainly related to different sowing dates. In central India, short duration….” To bring a continuity rather than merging the paragraphs.
2. The novelty needs to be highlighted in the MS.
3. The previous comment “The unit for data reported needs to be provided in table 2” has been reported to be addressed by the authors in the rebuttal letter but the changes are not seen in the table 2. Rectify it.
4. Many old references are cited in the MS which may be replaced with recent ones.
Adequate
Adequate
The authors have addressed previous concerns in the earlier revision. Just still the units should be added in Table 2 as well as LSD.
Adequite
Adequite
Dear Authors
Revise the manuscript as per the comments of the reviewers and resubmit for consideration.
Please include normal agriculture practices of crop.
[# 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. #]
1. The introduction section should be drafted so as there is a continuity in the flow of data.
2. The unit for data reported needs to be provided in table 2.
3. The full form of the abbreviations used needs to be provided at the first mentioned.
4. The discussion could be further enhanced
5. Similar research has been reported in 2018, highlight the novelty of the study.
1. The study may be carried out for multi years at multilocation trials.
1. The study can be further validated by multi year study for reliability of stable identified lines.
The manuscript provides a fairly robust dataset on combining ability, heterosis, and gene action of grain yield and content of Fe, Zn, and protein in bread wheat under normal and late sowing conditions. The authors put effort into crossing ten wheat genotypes and developed F1 crosses which were evaluated under normal and late sowing conditions. I suggest accepting the manuscript following major revision.
The manuscript needs major English editing.
The title should be improved, it could be “Combining ability, heterosis and gene action of grain yield and content of Fe, Zn and protein in bread wheat under normal and late sowing conditions”
The introduction needs to be improved, the hypothesis needs to be clarified. The importance of Fe and Ze content in wheat grain, the importance of statistical analysis (combining ability, heterosis, and gene action), the negative impact of late sowing need to be extended and improved.
Ms&Ms
More details should be added on the agricultural practices, N, P, and K fertilization rates, and water irrigation amount…..
Lines 111-114 should not be presented under the subtitle “Statistical analysis” but should be presented earlier above under subtitle “Description of the experimental site”
The result section needs to be improved and gene action is not presented which should be presented. Supplementary table 1 is important, it should be presented in the main text.
The obtained results should be discussed better and citations should be updated.
Adequite
Adequite
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.