Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on May 16th, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 27th, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 7th, 2023 and was reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on September 19th, 2023 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on September 30th, 2023.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Sep 30, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

All the comments has been resolved properly

Version 0.2

· Sep 6, 2023 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

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).

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Author satisfied my queries

Experimental design

Author satisfied my queries

Validity of the findings

Author satisfied my queries

Additional comments

Author satisfied my queries

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The author already gives some reasons for this manuscript. Pay attention to the manuscript writing format.

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

Some references were too old, and I changed them to new ones.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

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.

Experimental design

N/A

Validity of the findings

N/A

Additional comments

N/A

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jun 27, 2023 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

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) #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

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

Experimental design

Methodology is clear., explained very well
Replications are sufficient.

Validity of the findings

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.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

It is not clear about the design being experimental. A full explanation of how this study was conducted using Split Plot Design.

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

Similarity of this manuscript more than 20%. Please reduce it.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

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

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Additional comments

No comments

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

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.