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
I am pleased to inform you that after the last round of revision, the manuscript has been improved a lot, and it can be accepted for publication.
Congratulations on the acceptance of your manuscript, and thank you for your interest in submitting your work to Peer j
Best Regards
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript looks good
No comment
No comment
accept
all our comments were corrected by authors.
accept
all our comments were corrected by authors.
accept
all our comments were corrected by authors.
accept
all our comments were corrected by authors.
All of my concerns have been addressed by the author
All of my concerns have been addressed by the author
All of my concerns have been addressed by the author
Dear Author
The manuscript cannot be accepted for publication in its current form. It needs a major revision to be reconsidered for publication. The author is invited to revise the paper considering all the suggestions made by the reviewers. Please note that requested changes are required for publication.
With Thanks
[# 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) #]
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided
Methods should be described with sufficient information to be reproducible by another investigator.
nothing
The study is meeting the scientific standard in terms of technical language, experimental design, and implication of the results. The English language of article seems better, but some typo errors should be checked briefly during revision. I suggest a minor revision for this article and will be happy to review its revised version. The following suggestions should be considered to improve the manuscript quality before its publication in PeerJ.
need more information.
The English language of article seems better, but some typo errors should be checked briefly during revision. I suggest a minor revision for this article and will be happy to review its revised version. The following suggestions should be considered to improve the manuscript quality before its publication in PeerJ.
I suggest a minor revision for this article and will be happy to review its revised version. The following suggestions should be considered to improve the manuscript quality before its publication in PeerJ.
The authors used sixteen malting barley cultivars were used. Two fall-planted and two spring-planted trials were conducted in two consecutive years to determine the quality characteristics of malting barley cultivars in fall and spring plantings, which aims to determine the performance of winter and facultative malt barley cultivars based on agronomic and malt quality traits such as ME, diastatic power and alpha amylase activities in fall and spring plantings. He used the Tukey test to determine significant differences between genotypes used and GGE biplot (a) and stability, but this study needs more analyses and improvement to obtain accurate selection criteria such as path analysis, principal component, principal, cluster, additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) and broad-sense heritability.
- And also analysis of the interaction between treatments and /or years.
- The Tukey test at the 1% level of significance is the best.
- In the results, separate titles must be placed for each part.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate and appropriate
It was supporting results
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.