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.
All the issues pointed by the reviewers were addressed and the revised manuscript is acceptable now.
The authors have addressed all of my concerns.
The authors have addressed all of my concerns.
The authors have addressed all of my concerns.
Please address concerns of the reviewers and amend manuscript accordingly.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language should be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The current study aimed at finding out association between lignan metabolites and CT non-destructive testing of coconut fruit at different developmental stages. They have chosen two different varieties of coconut to find differences in metabolites. Figures are of importance but need to improve its pixels for the publication purpose. Authors should supply high quality of pics for publications. A through English proof reading is required.
The experiment is well planned and executed. Recording of data and analysis are proper. They have standard method of liquid chromatography to measure the levels of lignan metabolites in coconut water.
The experiment opens up new insight on the use of non-destructive method (CT-based). However it should correlated with its practical utility for example selection of a particular variety of plant after some breeding experiments.
Authors should should put forth some suggestions in what are the utility of this work in agricultural sciences for exam to select and reject some plant varieties.
1. The text is too small in FIgure 4-8.
2. What are “up” and “down” labels in Figure 5A?
3. Figure 5B is completely unreadable.
4. The color bar in Figure 6 is too small to read.
5. Significant improvements in English writing are required.
6. What are a,b,c,d in asscoaited with data shown in Table 1?
7. What is x-axis in Figure 1-3?
1. What is the purpose of focusing on 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 months data? Why not having a more fine grained study (e.g., 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 months)?
2. The authors failed to give enough introduction of Cephaloethin, Epiturinol, Turbinol, turbinol-4-O-glucoside, Rohan rosin phenol -4’-O-glucoside, 5’-methoxy-rohanoside, Isobarinin-9’-o-glucoside and Larinin-4’-o-glucoside. These have been frequently discussed in the manuscript without enough introduction to help readers understand the point of these measurements.
3. It is also unclear why the authors did the comparison between Wenye No.5 coconut and local coconut. Without clarifying enough rationale, almost 50% of the results are meaningless.
1. The results discussed between line 248 and 269 do not support the conclusion that Wenye No.5 coconut fiber and shell have superior properties compared to local coconut.
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.