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.
Thank you for your careful revision of the manuscript. I am glad to find that the English language has been improved significantly and now meets the journal's standards for publication.
Congratulations! I look forward to seeing your work in print.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The Section Editor recommends that you add a "Conclusions" section.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The manuscript can be accepted now.
The article meets the PeerJ criteria and should be accepted as is
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thanks for submitting the revised manuscript and rebuttal letter. I have carefully reviewed your submission and I have some feedback for you.
English language: I agree with reviewer 2 that the English language of the manuscript is not yet of a publishable standard. There are many small grammar problems, many of which were marked by Microsoft Word language tools. I would recommend that you get help from a professional language editing service to improve the English language of your manuscript.
Point 5 from reviewer 2: I found that you did not adequately address this comment in your revised manuscript. In the rebuttal letter, you state that this point has been "corrected," but I do not see any changes to the manuscript that address this point. I would recommend that you revise your manuscript to specifically address reviewer 2's concerns about point 5.
Points 7-9 from reviewer 2: Similar problems. I would recommend that you carefully review these points and make any necessary revisions to your manuscript.
I would like to see a revised manuscript that addresses all of the concerns raised by the reviewers. Once you have made the necessary revisions, please resubmit your manuscript for further consideration.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please note that this revision has only been reviewed by the Academic Editor at this point. Once you have addressed their comments, it will still need to be sent out for peer review.
**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.
**Language Note:** The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
This is an interesting study with findings that could have a positive impact on the cut flower industry. Please revise the manuscript based on the reviewers' recommendations, addressing their comments point by point.
[# 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 [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
In this article, the authors reported 500 mM sucrose treatment could significantly delay the petal color fading of chrysanthemum. Also, they found that the treatment of sucrose increased the flower diameter, soluble sugar contents and total antioxidant capacity, while decrease the malondialdehyde contents. Furthermore, they found that the decrease in transcripts of anthocyanin-associated structural genes and TFs were retarded by the sucrose treatment, except for a repressor in anthocyanin biosynthesis regulation: CmMYB#7. The results demonstrated by the authors are of interesting and have application values in production. Below I raise some points.
1. Why did the authors choose 500 mM as the concentration of sucrose treatment?
2. The authors should check the transcriptions of genes in the sucrose signaling pathway to serve as positive controls of sugar treatment.
3. Also, the transcriptions of senescence-associated genes should be checked.
no comments
no comments
no comments
In title Sucrose-delaying Flower color fading associated with delaying anthocyanin accumulation decrease in cut chrysanthemum it includes flower color fading is the prominent defect in red and purple cut flowers, especially in cut chrysanthemum which have a relative longer vase life. According to my opinion recommended minor revision. Some aspects of the work need to be revised.
1. Poor written English
2. Avoid using keywords already present in the title of the study.
3. Line 30-31 rewrite or improve this sentence.
4. In section Flower diameter detection methodology should be mentioned in detail.
5. In Introduction section with the potential field implications of the research work.
6. Gene name should be italic, including title and whole manuscript.
7. The methodology of qRT-PCR should be in detail.
8. Did you assess some practical implications of the genes and their expression?
9. More references to support the finding.
10. The figures and tables were informative. They just need better captions.
11. In qRT-PCR validation section should be mentioned results in detail.
no comments
nill
nill
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.