Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on January 19th, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on February 22nd, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on March 4th, 2024 and was reviewed by 3 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on April 1st, 2024.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Apr 1, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

Authors have addressed all the concerns raised during the review process. Therefore manuscript is ready for publication.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Gerard Lazo, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Nothing to declare.

Experimental design

Nothing to declare.

Validity of the findings

Nothing to declare.

Additional comments

Nothing to declare.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The authors addressed the concerns I raised in the first round of review.

Experimental design

The authors addressed the concerns I raised in the first round of review.

Validity of the findings

The authors addressed the concerns I raised in the first round of review.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Feb 22, 2024 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The manuscript was reviewed by three independent experts in the field. The reviewers found the work interesting but raised several issues, which should be addressed properly. The reviewers provide detailed comments in their reviews and point out the areas where the manuscript needs to be improved.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Nothing to declare.

Experimental design

Nothing to declare.

Validity of the findings

Nothing to declare.

Additional comments

I suggest reviewing possible spelling errors.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

The paper delves into an important research question, especially in light of climate change and arguably less preparedness in many parts of Asia and the world. They build upon their previous research and the paper is succinct in many places, still, the flow can be improved in the result and discussion sections.

Experimental design

The authors clearly describe what "water logging" means. One thing that can be further clarified- is it an approach they devised themselves? if not, what is the common approach across species? There are bound to be differences across species and genotypes. In similar vein, it would help the readers understand the results better if they explain the materials being used- the genotypes, mutants, and why that decision was made (unless they did it and I missed it).

Validity of the findings

The authors do a good job show cases the phenotypic differences. An additional analysis that includes local alignment of the genes at the nucleotide level could enhance the manuscript. See Lin, M. F., Jungreis, I., & Kellis, M. (2011). PhyloCSF: a comparative genomics method to distinguish protein coding and non-coding regions. Bioinformatics, 27(13), i275-i282.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

no comments

Experimental design

The author should explain the criteria behind the genes selected for q-PCR analysis, as there are other genes reported from the same family to be involved in the adventitious root development.

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

The pdf file is marked with comments.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

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.