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.
Dear authors,
Thank you for addressing all reviewer's recommendations and comments. I went through the re-submitted version myself and I am pleased that you responded to all comments. The language and structure of the current manuscript are much better. Therefore, your manuscript is now ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear authors,
Your manuscript is a good study and your results about packaging susceptibility showed that ants are more harmful to foodstuff packaging than the majority of stored grain pests. This article needs language editing in all its parts. The reviewer comments should be considered. It would be better for this article to be revised by a fluent English editor before re-submission.
**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 copyediting@peerj.com 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
Peer review report on manuscript Ref: Submission ID peerj-reviewing-88767-v0
Susceptibility of flexible plastic packaging for foodstuffs against the household ants Monomorium indicum Forel (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
Original submission
Recommendation: major revision
Overview and general recommendations
It is a good study. But there are some points need to correct in review file
good
original
.
.
.
Title of Manuscript: Susceptibility of flexible plastic packaging for foodstuff against the household ants Monomorium indicum Forel (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
This manuscript needs revision before it is published. The language, syntax and flow of information need to be addressed. It would be more appropriate if it is reviewed to improve the language before submission.
Some review comments are below:
Ln 33-37: Briefly explain how ants accessed the material before defining results.
Ln 44: You can list here what stored pests were used for mandibular comparisons.
Ln 36-51: Were both opaque polyethylene and transparent polyethylene susceptible at 0.06 mm thickness? This indicates that both materials were also susceptible at 0.04 mm thickness, which only leaves polypropylene resistant at 0.06 mm thickness. Be consistent in using singular or plural for both the mandibles and the teeth. Define for the reader why you are associating length of mandibles and mandibular teeth.
Ln 55: Specify if this is the number of worldwide species or regional.
Ln 55-61: I would restructure this paragraph. Numerous sentences may be combined to avoid repeated use of pronouns for ants.
Ln 58: Do you mean worker caste?
Ln 60: Remove semicolon and restructure sentence.
Ln 75: You can name the major stored grain borer for the instant of knowledge of the readers.
Ln 80-82: Rephrase to improve the flow. I would not use “due to” and “because of” in a single sentence here.
Ln 90: Pesticide resistance and insufficient appeal – against what? Mentioning of insect or other pest will be more appropriate than just giving reference to ease the understanding of the readers.
Ln 96: Same comment as or Ln 90 above.
Ln 98 -103: Confusing statements and syntax.
You have somewhat adequate literature referenced but in almost all cases the reader has to consult the reference to understand what organism(s) you are referring to.
Ln 117: How ants were collected and in what % ethanol they were preserved?
Ln 123: Use of “was” and “is” confusing.
Ln 121-125: Need to improve flow and syntax.
Ln 199-210: You may list the other insects used for mandibular comparisons. These are confusing statements. Sentences may be articulated better to improve understanding.
Statistical design is ok but Results and Discussion sections also need to be promptly revised to correct grammar and syntax mistakes. Figure legends need revisions.
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.