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.
Congratulations. After all corrections, your manuscript can be accepted for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have addressed the comments
The authors have mentioned the experimental design
-
The authors have addressed the comments, however, there is still a scope for improvement of the article structure.
Revision is ok, however, there is still a scope to concise the content, word count is 368, but it could be reduced to 300.
*The references in the text and the reference list have been updated, and
* All of my spelling correction recommendations have been implemented.
* Figures are rearranged
*Confusion regarding methodology has been resolved.
*How the analyzes are made is expressed more clearly and understandably.
Every underlying data set is available. They are controlled, reliable, and sound statistically.
In addition to reviewers' recommendations;
Lines 104 and 108 may remain the same. I disagree with reviewer 1. But the choice is yours.
Line 114: use the word "enzymatic" instead of "physiological".
You wrote GPRs instead of PGRs in many places, correct them.
Line 223: what was the purpose of correlation analysis? You did not write it in the statistical analysis section of the materials and methods section.
I recommend you rewrite the conclusion section. It is important that you present your recommendations by giving a brief summary of your results.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language 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). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
1. The sentence construction and English of the manuscript is poor
2. The background information on the study, hypothesis, and research gaps are insufficient
3. Need to rearrange the figures
4. Need to discuss more on the presented results rather than discussing available literature
1. Research findings fall well under the scope of the journal
2. However, need clear presentation of the materials and methods as suggested in the PDF
3. Details on how root sampling was done need to be explained
1. Need to highlight, how it benefits growers
2. Where these results could be used
3. Conclusion session needs a thorough revision
Overall, the abstract is good but it could be presented in a more logical structure. It should follow the structure as follows;
1. Highlight the background of the study and research importance
2. Write materials and methods including design of study and location
3. Mention the significant findings, in quantitative terms like % increase or decrease, or values in ()
4. Conclusion and practical utility of the results.
• The language of the manuscript is easy to comprehend.
• The abbreviation of “Plant Growth Regulators” is written as “PGRs” in the text and “GPRs” in the titles. Please uniform this abbreviation.
• Lines 186 and 188: The letter “d” used as the abbreviation for "day" should be written in lowercase.
• References in the text and the reference list should be handled with greater care. Especially the reference list, should be revised in accordance with the Journal's guidelines.
o Line 47, 107, 115, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125
o Line 381, 391, 393, 405, 418, 421, 428, 436, 446, 452, 455, 461, 466, 472, 474, 478, 488, 504, 506, 512, 515, 518, 521, 528, 534, 540, 542, 545, 548, 551, 554, 557, 560, 566, 569, 581, 583, 586, 589, 592, 606
• Lines 121-122: Was Nakano and Asada (1980) method used to determine the amount of hydrogen peroxide or activity of APX?
• Line 129: What was the wavelength use for SS content determination? 10?
• Line 123-131: Please indicate the standarts used to calculate the SP, SS and GSH content.
• Which method was used to determine the amount of ASA?
• Every underlying data set is available. They are controlled, reliable, and sound statistically.
• All results have been adequately discussed.
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.