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 paper has been improved after revision incorporating all of the reviewers' comments and is accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jörg Oehlmann, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have improved the manuscript. It seems up to the mark for the publication in PeerJ.
accepted for publication
no
no
no
Please incorporate all comments of reviewers and please submit a point-to-point rebuttal letter. The language of the paper needs serious attention to improve. Please also improve discussions about the sample and objectives of the study. The discussion section should also be improved.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
There are some problems with the use of English language and grammar. I have indicated at few points. Authors can follow the same to update whole manuscript.
The literature and references are correct and sufficient.
Figures and tables are in proper shape and format.
The study followed the correct experimental design and the results are elaborative and concise.
These sections are well written expect for few language mistakes
The manuscript can be accepted after minor revisions.
The manuscript is well-written and generally clear. However, there are a few instances where the language could be further improved for better clarity and precision. Additionally, some sentences or statements could be rephrased to enhance the flow and readability of the manuscript.
1) It would be helpful to provide a bit more detail on the specific sampling locations within the Yellow River Wetland Reserve. Are there any considerations for the selection of these points? This information could enhance the transparency of your study.
2) In introduction section avoid overly complex sentences and terminology that might be unclear to non-specialist readers.
3) try to make it more concise and explicit. What are the specific goals or objectives you aim to achieve with this research?
4) While you mention that there is limited research on soil heavy metal content in the Yellow River Wetland Reserve, briefly explain why this gap in the literature is important. What questions or issues remain unanswered by previous studies in this area?
5) When discussing the seriousness of soil pollution, provide a few more details about the consequences of heavy metal contamination on the environment and human health.
6) Ensure that your citations follow a consistent format. Include the full names of authors, publication years, and complete references in the appropriate citation style.
no
no
no
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.