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.
Authors have addressed all of the reviewer's comments. This manuscript is ready for publication
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have tried to address the comments
-
Absence of nitrogen in soil samples raises questions about the other data presented in this MS. In my understanding Nitrogen in the form of nitrates etc. (combined form) is present in every soil. If nitrogen fixing organisms are present in the soil then definitely there should be nitrogen with some value NOT zero.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled
Revisions have been incorporated in the updated revised version, May proceed further.
Clarity has been provided and incorporated.
Results have been better explained in revised version. May proceed further plz.
Dear Authors,
Please improve your manuscript as advised by the reviewers. Provide missing information about methodology and results during revision.
I have reviewed the MS entitled ‘Cooperative detoxiûcation mechanisms of arsenate reduction and arsenic methylation in surface agricultural soil’.
The manuscript is well written, the article structure is professional, however there are some suggestions that need to be incorporated.
Element names should not start with capital.
There should be no methodology or discussion in results section.
Line 297-300 need to be rewritten.
Spell check Candidatus Nitrocosmicus.
Soil properties not analyzed by statistical tools.
Raw values of soil analyses that led to means given in tables need to be provided as raw data.
References in the text as well as in the list need to be according to PEERJ style.
The figures pasted in the MS need not to be provided as supplemental to avoid duplication.
The manuscript falls within the scope of PEERJ. Research gap identified.
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
Methods described with sufficient details.
In table 1, authors mentioned that total nitrogen (TN) was not detected. Nitrogen is an important component of soil. Authors need to explain the possible reasons behind the absence of nitrogen in both soil samples. Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
corrections suggested
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results
• The study comprises the role of soil microbiomes for Cooperative detoxification mechanisms of arsenate reduction and arsenic methylation in surface agricultural soil. The title should be revised.
• The discussion and results related to different bacterial taxa involved in detoxification and transformation is missing.
• Arsenic-transforming pathways required further information.
• Soil texture was analyzed by mechanical analysis through the pipette method. Add reference.
• Relative abundance lacks statistical differences.
• Hoe soil microbiomes isolated from soil. Methodology is missing for isolation of microbiomes from soil.
• How the culture of Chloroûexi, Gemmatimonadota, and Bacteroidota etc was managed and stored.
• On what basis, common bacterial taxa were identified? Please incorporate data.
• Please add novelty statements.
• Legends are not written properly. All tables and figures should be revised because they must be self-explanatory.
This study content is written very clearly about the methodology and limitations as well, representing a true analysis, There is no ambiguity on the conceptual work from soil samples to the genomic study, and the concise information has been presented , well justified with references, The level of professional English is good for publication understanding. The Literature referenced has been found to be appropriate and up to date.
Overall the structure of paper and citations are up to the mark.
The tables and figures are clear and well presented.
The research focus and scope clearly falls in Scope of journal. Research question was comprehensively crafted and worked out covering the field and lab work for dry and wet season. The knowledge gap was there and linking the agricultural top soil is critical being on top and presenting applied chemical inputs have found good chances of arsenic although there is rainfall to flush out such nutrients. design is extraordinary and seems a well planned study. for logical extractions.
Standard procedures have been followed and logical consequences have been presented. Data is solid and well presented. Findings have been presented in a very elaborative way that has increased length of article, which may be seen by editorial team to reduce the size probably.
The limitation of bioinformatics database matching has limitations of two species.
Improve the linking of soils data with microbial populations as well. Rectify grammatical errors and improve spells. Better to have a co author from a native English country.
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.