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 Authors have addressed all reviewers' comments and fulfilled all their and my requests; therefore the manuscript does not need a further round of revision and can be published in the present form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
My suggested changes and comments are in the annotated PDF here enclosed.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
This manuscript is written in a good professional English.
There are details missing in the Abstract, e.g. where the experiment was made (greeenhouse, open field, etc.). In the Discussion the possible explanations about the reduced root growth have to be included and to cite more authors.
Also there are statements without citing authors. These missing elements are marked in the attached manuscript text.
The article structure and figures are o.k. Only in the tables where statistic was used there is missing to include what type of statistic in the foot note.
This research is original and within the aims and scope of the yournal.
The research question is well defined and relevant, especially because of possible effects of climate change (waterlogging, flooding) on these plants,
The investigation is rigorous performed and with a high technical standard and methods are well described and easy to replicate.
The impact and novelty are assessed.
The underlying date are robust and statistically sound.
The Conclusions are are too scarcy. In the attached text is annotated what has to be improved. Also there is missing what new research work is recommended in the topic of the article.
The scientific paper titled 'Waterlogging in Soil Restricts the Growth of Gleditsia sinensis Seedlings and Inhibits the Accumulation of Lignans and Phenolic Acids in Thorns' has been submitted to the journal PeerJ and aligns with its editorial scope. In the introduction, the authors provide a detailed overview of the current knowledge regarding the Gleditsia sinensis species, emphasizing the need for studies on the adaptation of this species to different soil types and environmental conditions to fill a knowledge gap. This is substantiated by a thorough bibliography
The Materials and Methods section is well-described but excessively lengthy. I suggest the authors, if possible, to condense it while maintaining an effective description of their activities and applied protocols. The experimental design aligns with the hypotheses proposed by the authors and is scientifically valid. The number of replicates is adequate, and the graphical and statistical analyses substantiate the results.
The results are presented effectively, illustrated through figures and tables. In the annotated file, specific comments are provided for identified errors and particular requests for modifications.
The text is articulated in good scientific English, and the discussion and conclusion paragraphs are effectively articulated, establishing a clear connection to the original research question. They underscore the significance of selecting soil with precise water retention characteristics to foster G. sinensis seedlings characterized by elevated levels of specific metabolites and nutrients.
Considering the scientific work conducted by the authors that contribute to advancing knowledge in a less-explored field, and with some minor adjustments, I believe the article is suitable for publication in the PeerJ journal. The text is well-crafted, and the discussion and conclusion paragraphs effectively link to the original research question, emphasizing the importance of selecting soil with specific water retention characteristics to achieve G. sinensis seedlings with high levels of specific metabolites and nutrients.
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.