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.
After carefully considering the revisions made by the authors in response to the suggestions provided by the two reviewers, it is evident that significant improvements have been achieved. As such, I recommend accepting the manuscript in its current form.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ. After careful consideration and thorough review by two independent reviewers. I am pleased to inform you that one reviewer has accepted the manuscript in its current form, while the other has suggested minor revisions.
Please review the feedback and suggested edits from the second reviewer, and submit your revised manuscript at your earliest convenience. Your attention to these minor revisions will enhance the clarity and impact of your paper.
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript and moving forward with the publication process.
Best regards,
Elsayed Mansour
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have made the changes I suggested in the last review. I recommend its publication in this journal.
'no comment'
'no comment'
'no comment'
Overall, the authors have revised the document, however, it is still some minor revision that should be taken in consideration.
As the authors re-performed the analyses including the 'year effect' and the "interactions", so they should mention that in the "statistical analyses section". Moreover, in the results section, they should include a short paragraph about the effect of the year and its interaction with treatment on the measured traits. This way, the reader will understand why these two factors did not were among the results presented later.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Biological Manure Substitution Impacts on Grain Yield, Nitrogen Recovery Efficiency, and Soil Biochemical Properties" for consideration. Your work, which explores the potential of biological manure as a sustainable alternative to chemical fertilizers in rice production, is of significant interest. Upon evaluation, your manuscript has undergone a thorough review by two esteemed reviewers in the field. Based on their comprehensive analysis, it has been determined that the manuscript requires major revisions before it can be considered for publication. The reviewers have provided detailed feedback aimed at enhancing the clarity, depth, and scientific rigor of your study.
Please ensure that each point raised by the reviewers is addressed in your revised submission. A detailed response letter accompanying your revised manuscript, clearly outlining how you have addressed each comment, will be essential for further consideration.
To move forward, I strongly encourage you to address the concerns and suggestions highlighted by each reviewer meticulously. The revisions should focus on, but not be limited to:
- Strengthening the methodology to enhance the reliability of the results.
- Expanding the discussion to more deeply analyze the implications of your findings within the context of current research in the field.
- Clarifying any ambiguous points that may hinder the understanding of your study's significance and contributions.
Your dedication to advancing knowledge in sustainable agricultural practices is valued, and we believe that your revised manuscript could make a substantial contribution to the field. We look forward to receiving your revised submission and continuing the review process.
Best regards,
Elsayed Mansour
**Language Note:** PeerJ staff have identified that the English language needs to be improved. When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
The manuscript needs some changes
The study demonstrates an acceptable experimental design.
The findings show significant benefits of using biological manure to increase rice yield and straw weight.
I reviewed the paper titled "Biological manure substitution impacts on grain yield, nitrogen recovery efficiency, and soil biochemical properties". The study provides insights into the potential of biological manure as a sustainable alternative to chemical fertilizers for rice production. The manuscript needs language editing.
-Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Abstract
- The abstract is well written and clearly states the question of investigating the impact of substituting chemical fertilizers with biological manure on rice productivity and soil health.
- While the abstract mentions "innovative biological manure," specifying the type of manure (e.g., compost, vermicompost) could be beneficial.
Introduction
- The introduction is very concise the authors may add a paragraph about the specific limitations of chemical fertilizers.
Materials and methods
- Rephrase the Statistical Analysis section to be as the following:
To assess the differences in grain yield, biomass, and soil properties among the various nitrogen treatments (i.e., N0, N100, and N70BM), a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by least significant difference (LSD) tests (P < 0.05) was performed using SPSS 20.0 software (SPSS, Inc., 2011, Chicago, IL, USA).
Results
-In section 3.4.1 Soil nutrient and microbial biomass: Replace "the lower ammonium N content" with "the lowest ammonium N content" for clarity.
- Also in section 3.4.1, the authors mention non-significant differences but do not provide the actual values. Including them might be helpful for readers.
-In multiple places: Replace "the average value of" with "an average value of" for smoother phrasing.
- In section 3.4.2 Soil enzyme activity: Replace "average highest C-acquisition enzyme activities" with "highest average C-acquisition enzyme activities" for better sentence flow
Discussion
- The discussion section is well-structured and provides a solid analysis of your findings in the context of existing research.
- Consider replacing repetitive phrases like "this could be..." with more assertive statements or varying your sentence constructions for a more engaging read.
Conclusion
- You might want to slightly rephrase the opening sentence to more explicitly highlight the significance of your findings within the broader context of N management research. For example, you could start with: "Our study demonstrates that proper N management, particularly the inclusion of biological manure, significantly influences..."
The introduction needs some details about the common biological manure applications in the region of study and what new for the manure application suggested by the current work.
Some experimental details should be added to clarify how the study was carried out.
The statistical analyses should re-done including the effect of the year in the statistical model. Accordingly, the results could be greatly changed.
'no comment'
'no comment'
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.