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.
Thanks for addressing the editorial suggestions.
There are still some minor language issues; we recommend a thorough revision or a professional edition service.
Line 37-38 Please use "fruits per tree" instead of fruits.tree-1 (line 268)
Line 38 Explain "yield%." Perhaps it is a "percentual yield increase"?
Line 43. Please change "carotenoids of leaf" to "leaf carotenoids"
Please add spaces between numbers and units:
Line 46 "6g/L" and "3MM" (line 286, 301)
There are liter units expressed in "l" instead of "L"
Line 132 "2m x 4m"
Line 174 Italicize "g"
Use consistently "g" or "gr" for grams,
The whole document needs to be revised in full detail.
The article still needs to be revised for consistency in units and capitalization.
I've attached the PDF (supplied by the Section Editor) for you to look over. For example, 6 grams per liter is written variously as "6g/l," "6 g/l," "6 g/L," and "6 g L -1." Sometimes, the figure is capitalized, and sometimes, it is not.
Also, every figure legend is cut off.
The following websites may be helpful you in using the appropriate unit nomenclature: https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2023/09/26/J-032%20Writing%20with%20the%20SI.pdf and https://www.nist.gov/pml/special-publication-811"; for addressing the required reviews.
Thank you for the technical aspects mentioned in your review. I have some suggestions for improving style and clarity in the attached PDF. Please consider them and send a revised version addressing these issues.
Introduction: Commitment to writing the introduction according to what was stated in the first evaluation by placing paragraph (127–132), then paragraphs (142–153), then paragraphs (134–141), then paragraphs (176–184), and finally paragraphs (187-192).Action must be taken
Materials and Methods :The climatic conditions data are fixed in Table 2. Action have been taken
Experimental units for treatments in line have been fixed. Action have been taken
Authors have adhered to maintaining references, changing references that are not suitable for the place, and replacing them with appropriate references. Action have been taken
References: The authors have complied with the requested amendments in the list of references as well as the amendments recorded in the body of the manuscript.
Actions have been taken, and experimental units for treatments in line have been fixed.
The authors have made the required corrections regarding some references and the method of preparing licorice extract, relying on appropriate references. Also, the deficiencies in the references have been added, and some of the required references in the explanations have been corrected.
I believe that the researchers have adhered to many of the points that were commented on by the reviewers, and I hope that they will adhere to the rest of them so that the research will come out in a good form befitting a prestigious journal such as the Journal PeerJ
Please address all comments from reviewers and submit a revised version along with a rebuttal letter.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language could be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
I think, authors have used unambiguous and good English language with minor revisions for manuscript. Moreover, authors adhered high standard of clarity, precision and professionalism using appropriate terminology and avoiding slang language throughout the manuscript.
The manuscript is good but need some organized to flow logically from introduction to conclusion.
The introductory section lengthy lacks a clear sequence, for example, in introduction in line 56, authors talked about biostimulant, and in line 65, authors moved to talk about mango nutritional value, and in line 77 moved to talk about potassium and finally once again in line 124, authors talked about licorice root extract which it is biostimulant (I think authors must follow correct instructions in introduction section).
It is important to mention, that the manuscript lacks a table, graph, histogram or any other suitable means, that effectively illustrate the temperature variations over time during experiment, it should cover specific stage of fruit growth, this could include, minimum, maximum, and average temperature during the growth.
Results clearly and supported by sufficient data, however, need some Modifications and completion of some requirements such as some incomplete sources and temperature table.
The conclusions drawn are supported by the data and align with researchers' objectives.
The references cited need some modification, and I were put more comments on the body of manuscript.
The authors adopted randomized complete block design, which is appropriate for field research, but did not mention number of experimental units, the manuscript align with the aim and scope of the journal
I think, statistical analysis was conducted appropriately, consequently, results clearly and supported by sufficient data, moreover, the conclusions drawn are supported by the data and align with researchers' objectives.
I have provided more comments on the body of manuscript which I have attached
Review and correct the way of citing references in the text.
Review and correct subscripts in chemical formulas throughout the text.
For ease of reading, I suggest using acronyms for the treatments. For example: Control, LRE2, LRE4, LRE6, PS1, PS2 and PS3. These acronyms should be used in tables or figures.
Present meteorological data to justify that the study was conducted under a heat stress condition.
2.1. Experimental site
Add geographic coordinates of the experimental area.
Indicate the planting density of the mango trees.
Indicate the amount of solution applied to each tree on each date.
Indicate the total amount of licorice root extract and potassium sorbate that was applied to each tree.
At what phenological stage of the tree was the application of the treatments initiated and completed? Provide detailed information on how the treatments were applied (equipment used, product dosage and amount of water per hectare, time of day, etc.).
“2.2.3. Photosynthetic pigments” y “2.2.6. Photosynthetic pigments”.
2.2.5. Determination relative water content.
Yamasaki & Dillenburg (year)
Use 2.2.7 instead of 2.3.7.
Esfandiari et al. (year).
There are many figures in the manuscript, I suggest presenting the results in tables or in composite figures (using programs such as SigmaPlot or GraphPad Prism).
I suggest reorganizing the information to make it easier to read. Separate the Results section and the Discussion section. Present the results in a simple and concise way only indicate which treatments were statistically similar or different. It is not necessary to place values. At the end of the sentence indicate where the information is located (Table or Figure). For example. In both seasons, the leaf area obtained with T3 (LRE6) was superior to that of the other treatments (Figure 1).
For the Discussion section, I suggest not using subheadings. More than one variable can be discussed simultaneously in the same paragraph. This section should indicate to what the results obtained are attributed using adequate and updated references. Values should be highlighted and compared with other studies where similar variables or treatments were evaluated. I suggest presenting cost data for the application of new technologies. Raise new hypotheses that should be considered in future studies. The following factors should be considered for this research: quantity and diversity of nutrients or metabolites that were supplied with each of the treatments; physiological or metabolic processes triggered by the metabolites applied in the different treatments.
No comments
English is very very poor throughout the manuscript
Pattern of literature citation is very casual
Raw data not downloaded
Results are not expressed properly
Methodology for estimation of some parameters are not there in 'Materials and methods' section. However, in most of the case, methodology is very brief which need to be elaborated.
Research question is not properly defined
Discussion section is very very poor
Conclusion is not properly expressed
The manuscript is very poor in English.
All the section including Introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion as well as conclusion sections are written very casually and the structure of the manuscript not meeting the standard of any journal.
There is no scientific justification is the discussion section
Materials and methods section is also very poor which need to improve by giving descriptive methodology for each and every parameters studied.
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.