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.
As you can see, Reviewers 2 and 3 both independently request that you include more recent references (and reviewer 3 asks you to critically evaluate them).
Author satisfied my queries
Author satisfied my queries
Author satisfied my queries
Author satisfied my queries
The author already gives some reasons for this manuscript. Pay attention to the manuscript writing format.
no comment
no comment
Some references were too old, and I changed them to new ones.
I can clearly see the authors have made necessary changes in the manuscript . The introduction was modified with the addition the novelty of the work, new keywords that justify the abstract title and abbreviations in the beginning of the manuscript. All the comments of reviewers were clearly addressed. My only suggestion to the authors is to add more recent reference in the discussion and make critical comparison. Don't just add the findings of the previous researchers. Rest it can be considered for further processing, given that the authors make these minor changes.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Dear Authors
This manuscript was reviewed by three reviewers and one reviewer has given a negative response. Please resubmit the manuscript as per the comments of the reviewers.
[# 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) #]
English is fine but some places it need to be improve
Figure and tables are explanatory
Introduction is well to explain the reason to conduct experiment
Methodology is clear., explained very well
Replications are sufficient.
This experiment is variety specific which may help to identify the impact of stress on this variety growth and performance.
Some suggestion are given in attached pdf please follow them to improve the article.
no comment
It is not clear about the design being experimental. A full explanation of how this study was conducted using Split Plot Design.
no comment
Similarity of this manuscript more than 20%. Please reduce it.
I don't understand why the current study is novel since there are already so many papers about the impact of stress on cotton crop development that are in the public domain. Besides it appears that the study is more region specific than it is for the broader population. Instead of the current study, it would have been preferable if the authors had concentrated their research on creating or choosing elite cotton lines using advanced software tools that could handle the stress impact
No comments
No comments
No comments
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.