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 addressing all comments raised during the revision process, your manuscript can be accepted. One of the previous reviewers declined the revision, so I have addressed the revision by myself and this manuscript can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
Please focus on the following comments:
-This work provides new insights into the proteome changes related with essential-oil buildup in H. cordata, focusing on the involvement of ribosomal proteins. However, it would be useful to directly contrast these findings with previous literature to emphasize the originality of the discovery even more.
-It may be beneficial to offer further information on the selection criteria for the tissues investigated, as well as any limits to this technique.
-further statistical validation (e.g., replication or validation trials) may reinforce the conclusions reached
-The plagiarism rate stands at 23%, and the AI score is at 21%; these figures should be substantially decreased!!
Moreover, the comments raised by Reviewer 2 can be found in the text directly. Please address them accordingly.
Best regards
**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.
Major Comments:
Originality and contribution: This work provides new insights into the proteome changes related with essential-oil buildup in H. cordata, focusing on the involvement of ribosomal proteins. However, it would be useful to directly contrast these findings with previous literature to emphasize the originality of the discovery even more.
Methodology: The use of iTRAQ-based proteomic analysis is well justified and constitutes a reliable method for studying protein expression in various plant tissues. It may be beneficial to offer further information on the selection criteria for the tissues investigated, as well as any limits to this technique.
The authors conducted a thorough study of the proteomic data, revealing critical ribosomal proteins that might impact essential oil synthesis. Further exploration of the biological significance of these results in terms of essential oil production would enhance the research. Furthermore, given the complexity of proteomics data, further statistical validation (e.g., replication or validation trials) may reinforce the conclusions reached.
The plagiarism rate stands at 23%, and the AI score is at 21%; these figures should be substantially decreased.
No comment
No comment
No comment
Please refer to the comments in the revised manuscript attached
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.