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.
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 #]
Nothing to declare.
Nothing to declare.
Nothing to declare.
Nothing to declare.
The authors addressed the concerns I raised in the first round of review.
The authors addressed the concerns I raised in the first round of review.
The authors addressed the concerns I raised in the first round of review.
no comment
no comment
no comment
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.
Nothing to declare.
Nothing to declare.
Nothing to declare.
I suggest reviewing possible spelling errors.
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.
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).
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.
no comments
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.
no comment
The pdf file is marked with comments.
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.