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.
Accepted and ready to go for production
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I request the author to address the comments from the reviewers.
**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.
The topic was not clear. The authors simply listed some related articles and did not provide in-depth discussion.
Review article.
No in-depth discussion. Simply listed related articles together.
lack of novelty and depth
a. The manuscript is generally well-written. However, there are minor issues with grammar and phrasing that could be streamlined for better readability. For example, some sentences are overly complex or contain redundant words, which can obscure the intended meaning and make the text less accessible. Spelling errors in English words also need to be corrected.
b. The manuscript extensively cites current literature and provides a thorough background on the postharvest storage of melons. It covers various methods and their impacts on melon quality. The manuscript covers various methods and their impact on the quality of melons, providing a comprehensive summary.
c. The structure of the manuscript adheres to academic standards with clear sections including the introduction, methods, results, and conclusions. Figures are used effectively to support the findings, but some minor modifications are necessary.
a. The content is appropriate for the journal's focus on biological science.
b. The manuscript complies with technical and ethical standards.
c. For a review manuscript, the methodology of literature collection and analysis is adequately detailed.
a. The topic is relevant to current agricultural practices and offers practical insights that can help improve melon storage and extend its shelf life, which is crucial for reducing waste and enhancing food security.
b. The conclusions are directly tied to the evidence reviewed, summarizing the effectiveness of different storage methods.
c. The manuscript largely summarizes existing literature without much critical analysis or discussion of the limitations of the reviewed studies. In the "Conclusion" section, it is suggested to include which method from the existing research is more advantageous for melon postharvest storage, and to discuss the limitations of the studies reviewed, which could provide a more comprehensive and balanced perspective.
Figures：
1. In Figure 1, the word "layer" appears twice in "outer layer".
2. Figure 2 legend, the word "figure" is misspelled in the sentence "The following abbreviations are used in the fgure."
3. Figure 3, since the author explains the process of reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging, please complete the diagram accordingly. It is recommended to organize the diagram based on antioxidant enzymes (SOD, APX, CAT, GPX, etc.) and non-enzymatic antioxidants (ascorbic acid, glutathione, flavonoids, etc.).
In the sentence "Superoxide dismutase is the only enzyme present...", avoid using absolute terms like "only" unless supported by sufficient references.
Main text:
1. As an academic publication, it is recommended to remove references to the use of Sci-Hub for searches throughout the text.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The paper was able to describe more comprehensively the research progress on the effects of postharvest storage methods on the quality of melon, but the linguistic presentation of individual statements was not sufficiently scholarly and professional and needs to be polished.
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.