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.
Revised article accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please revise the article considering the reviewers comments.
• Corrections are done as suggested.
• In line no. 247, the abbreviation NSS should be replaced with NNS as this comparison is for NNS (No. of nucleotide sites). (Go through Table 4).
• Line no. 248-252 should be removed as it is repeating.
• Add comparison for NH (No.of haplotypes).
• Rest, corrections has been made properly.
• Problems are properly justified.
English used meets the standard, the literature reviewed is satisfactory and the necessary corrections have been incorporated.
The article represents originality, the methodology adopted is appropriate and the recommended actions have been well satisfied.
Minor corrections suggested previously have been justified.
Please revise the article considering the comments of reviewers.
**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.
• English used in the review is clear and professional in all sections except 'results". Please review it
again and make it in clear English language.
• Figures are relevant and clear.
• Line number 57, please cite the reference.
• Research question is well defined.
• Corrections in Line 255 and 256. Give separate comparison for NSS and NNS.
• Make corrections from line 255-261 as there are mistakes in writing when compared to Table no. 4.
• In line 281, 6 accessions are written but in bracket 7 names are mentioned. Please do check and make
it correct.
• All the data provided are robust and statistically sound.
• Conclusions are well linked with the research question.
"Results" section can be explained in some more better way. The comparison portion of results should be once checked carefully.
The English used in the article is good, but a few sentences are unclear mentioned below, and should be addressed.
Line 101-105; Rewrite the sentence for better understanding.
Line 119-124; Split the sentence and rewrite the second sentence for better understanding.
In introduction lines 55-56; the production data is available for the more recent years that can be incorporated and the area of production can also be added.
The figures and data supplied are satisfactory and useful for future experiments in the coffee improvement programs.
This is the original research and well suited to the current situation.
The question raised related to adulteration in coffee is very much relevant, and the discussion should be added.
The methodology described is informative and clear, collection of plant material is appreciable; some corrections should be addressed as mentioned below-
Line 170; What do you mean by “Cooler”?
Line 219; PIC is not an appropriate abbreviation for parsimony informative sites.
Line no 234; “There was a total of 5381 positions in the final dataset”- specify the positions.
Line 249; This should be part of the materials and methods.
Sufficient data have been provided to justify the research question and well discussed; the conclusions are satisfying the research problem. The below-mentioned corrections should be incorporated.
Line 255-261; Please correlate the data with Table 4 and describe accordingly.
Line 263; Data represented from Table 5 not from Table 4, make corrections accordingly.
Lines 263-266; mention the average nucleotide composition of trnL-trnF barcode primer.
Line 270; Write PIS grand total value for trnL.
Line 362; Make correction, and replace PIC with PIS.
Lines 85-89 of the introductory paragraph should also be discussed under the heading of “discussion”.
Table 5; Make a correction in the head row, and replace trnC with trnL.
Table S1; Make corrections, and replace PIC with PIS.
Overall work is impactful, check for minor grammar mistakes at your end.
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.