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.
The manuscript is acceptable.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
The Section Editor noted:
> The text portion is fine; however, there were a few issues with the accompanying tables which seemed to harbor some un-resolved edits from previous versions.
The authors are requested to revise the manuscript as per the suggestions of reviewers.
The result section of abstract is unclear, it should be explained clearly. Some of the necessary corrections suggested in pdf file and highlighted.
The data presented in the table should have interaction CD.
The manuscript may be considered for publication after implementation of suggested corrections.
Thank you very much to the authors for revising the manuscript thoroughly. However, there is room to improve the sentences, data analysis and typographical errors.
NA
Data analysis is needed to be revalidated.
NA
The authors have been requested to carefully review the reviewers' comments and implement the suggested changes in their manuscript. In addition, they have also been asked to thoroughly proofread their entire manuscript to correct any English typographical errors.
[# 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 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) #]
Dear Editor,
I have suggested some corrections in the manuscript.
OK
OK
The study provides important insights into the potential benefits of conservation tillage and integrated nutrient management strategies for enhancing basmati rice productivity and sustainability. I believe that this manuscript would be of interest to your readers.
No comments
No comments
Paper is suitable and may be accepted for publication
At present the article is average in language and requires professional English. There are typos and grammatical errors and incomplete sentences throughout the text that requires major revision.The research article titled “Conservation tillage and fertilizer management strategies impacts on basmati rice (Oryza sativa L): Crop performance, crop water productivity, nutrient uptake and fertility status of the soil under Rice- Wheat cropping system” deals with the impact of judicious fertilizer use and conservation tillage on an important cropping pattern Rice-Wheat. The research article is well formulated, relevant and carried out intensively which will generate scientific insight to agronomic technologies under water stress conditions in Rice-wheat cropping system. The study is original fitting the scope of the journal. In my opinion, this review article lacks deep insight explanation overall. The article vocabulary seems average for the standards of the journal. The overall word strength of the article can be worked upon and more fluent language of vocabulary can be served. There are several minor typing errors throughout the text. The result and discussion part consists of only results and there is absence of mechanism and references supporting the claims. Therefore, I would suggest the authors to carry out a careful and extensive revision of the text and include the required mentioned data to make the article more significant and impactful.
Title: Kindly recast the title as the title is not catchy and seems lengthy.
Abstract: Abstract should be recasted with information of the findings in result section and improve the vocabulary. Shorten the keywords.
Introduction: Restructure the introduction part with a conceptual understanding and include more recent references pertaining to conservation agriculture.
Material methods: Exhaustive explanation about soil parameters to be avoided. Include benefit cost ratio of the study.
Result and discussion: Discussion part is missing.
Section Line no Comments
Abstract 20 Recast the line.
23 ‘Change the orientation of the line by substituting the words in capital
32 Quantify ‘better taller plants with increase percentage and higher dry matter. Avoid superficial words like better and higher.
36 N6- Kindly elaborate
38 Mention the ‘method of production’.
50 Recast the line
52 Provide insight into phonological studies.
Introduction 62 Kindly provide reference for the statement.
63 ‘Nation’ provide insight about the nation mentioned in the text
69 Kindly recast with corrected grammar.
73 Elaborate synthetic cost.
77 Complete the sentence “creating imbalance”.
78-79 Reference.
80 Since its introduction. Elaborate ‘its’.
Materials and methods 99 Kindly recast
103 Restructure the sentences correcting the grammar and vocabulary. (0C)
110 ‘PB-1509’- provide additional information about the rice variety .
122 ‘lost plough’
Result and Discussion 157 ‘outgrew’ mention significant or non significant and % increase of height in ‘CT-TPR’
159 Elaborate ‘comparable’
170-171 Contradictory statements
186 Recast the line
The experimental design is unambiguous and relevant. The research is within the scope of the journal and will fulfill the knowledge gap.
Findings not assessed with relevant literature.
Discussion is missing and include cost benefit ratio.
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.