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.
Dear Authors,
It is pleasant to me to accept the manuscript "Diversity of bioprotective microbial organisms in Upper Region of Assam and its efficacy against Meloidogyne graminicola" based on reviewer's report. It is quite impressive.
Congratulations.
With Regards
Ravindra
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Author has considered all the suggestions and incorporated it in the manuscript. Article structure, figures and tables are nice and needs no further revision. Result is well written and easy to understand.
No improvement is needed.
All the experiments are validated.
Dear Author,
Kindly go through the suggestion/queries raised by both reviewers. Incorporate them and revise the manuscript.
[# 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. #]
References are not according to the journal's format. Majority of work needed to be done on references.
Discussion is not appropriate and need special attention to rewrite it according to the results.
Few photos related to the work will be good and improve the quality of this paper, if available.
"et al" should be italicized everywhere.
Experimental design is upto the mark.
The findings are validating according to the present scenario.
Overall, the manuscript is interesting and well written
There are number of shortcomings in the methodology section.
For example,
Why do you centrifuge after passing through bacterial filter?
How did the authors choose for 28 ˚C for 48h for growing bacteria?
Will the section 2.6 be reproducible, since the production of metabolites might vary and just diluting might not be a right way of quantification?
I suggest the authors to recheck the methodology section.
The data in the manuscript is just the screening of microbes which is preliminary study. The authors should work on the mode of action or mechanism.
What is the rationale for collecting soil from plant growing areas other than paddy?
The mechanism of inhibition should be studied
Discussion needs to be improved based on the results obtained and keep it to the point.
Conclusion should highlight the novelty of work.
Abstract should be improved
Please expand RRKN and IPM in abstract
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.