Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on July 1st, 2024 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on July 24th, 2024.
  • The first revision was submitted on July 30th, 2024 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • A further revision was submitted on August 21st, 2024 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 30th, 2024.

Version 0.3 (accepted)

· Aug 30, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

Article revised considering expert comments hence recommended for acceptance.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Robert Winkler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Version 0.2

· Aug 20, 2024 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please revise considering comments.

·

Basic reporting

Formate issues at line no. 259 and 316.
Alphabtes are not as per standared formate.

Experimental design

ok

Validity of the findings

ok

Additional comments

Revision required as given below:
1. Keywords repeated two times
2. Formate issues at line no. 259 and 316.
3. Alphabtes are not as per standared formate.

Reviewer 3 ·

Basic reporting

Well explained.

Experimental design

Required to justify as laboratory experiments suits different design.

Validity of the findings

Good findings mentioned

Additional comments

After proper justification of comments in MS as well as attached sheet will be okay for publication.

Comments of MS 102808v2 Role of polyethylene glycol to alleviate lead stress in Raphanus sativus
Congrulations to all the authors for very good research conducted on abiotic stress of plants. The research will be useful in future for different crops research to Agricultural scientists.
Comment 1: How standardized the priming dose of PEG on the growth and development of radish plants growing under Pb stress. What happen above or below concentration of priming.
Comment 2: In conclusion write scope of this research in breeding program.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Jul 24, 2024 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Revise the article considering the reviews comments

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No comment

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

No comment

Additional comments

Authors are requested to make the corrections or justify the statements (see the attached file).

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

·

Basic reporting

The study is very interesting and requires to study of the impact of HMs seed germination. The MS is very informative, especially for its seed priming in heavy metal-affected soils. At this stage, the MS is not suitable for publication but needs to be rigorous revision for grammar, punctuation and language.

Experimental design

The experiment was designed nicely on seed priming in HM affected soils.

Validity of the findings

As per my knowledge, the findings seems valid.

Additional comments

There are several mistakes as given below:
1. Remove the word novel from the title and revise it.
2. The author used the free available Grammarly online software for language improvement but unknowingly used Coma before and everywhere. Please remove it.
3. The table sequence in the text is not as per requirement.
4. Several typing mistakes are there.
5. Authors need to rewrite the references as per journal format.
6. Tables need to be superscript of the alphabet.

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.