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.
Dear authors,
We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication in PeerJ. After thorough peer review, the reviewers have recognized the significance of your research and its contribution to the field.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The article is written in clear, unambiguous and technically correct English. Sufficient introduction and properly referenced background are included. The structure conforms to the journal format. The tables and figures are appropriate, they show the data correctly and are easy to interpret and understand. The data are interpreted appropriately and coherently throughout the article.
It is an original primary research within the aims and scope of the journal. The research question is well-defined, relevant and significant; and identifies the knowledge gap being investigated. The research was conducted with rigor and to a high technical and ethical standard. The methods are described with sufficient detail and information to be replicated.
The study has good impact and novelty. All underlying data have been provided in a robust manner and adequate statistical analysis is performed. Conclusions are well-stated, linked to the original research question and limited to supporting results.
All the reviewers' observations were corrected.
Dear authors,
The manuscript provides a significant contribution to the field, but several areas require improvement to enhance clarity and scientific rigor. First, the authors should include relevant citations in the methodology to ensure credibility and traceability. Results must be narrated descriptively, connecting findings to specific figures or tables. Consistency in presenting data as mean ± SD and clarifying statistical significance with p-values are essential. Interpretation of findings should emphasize biological and practical implications, addressing the importance of antibacterial activity. Moreover, including comparisons with multiple positive controls and improving the discussion will enrich the manuscript. Lastly, ensure all citations follow the journal's guidelines.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: 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. #]
no comment
The experimental designs are good but I suggest the author 5 to mmprove the interpretation of results by explaining the biological or practical implications, helping readers understand the importance of the findings.
no comment
The authors report on the “Antibacterial activity of the endophytic fungal extracts and synergistic effects of combinations of EDTA against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli”. The authors address the following reviewer comments and suggestions:
1. Include relevant citations in the methodology section, as it follows standard methods. This will enhance the credibility and traceability of the techniques used.
2. The results section should provide a descriptive account of findings rather than simply referring to figures and tables. Summarize key findings in words, connecting them to specific figures or tables, to give readers a clear interpretation.
3. Ensure data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) in tables, as mentioned in the text. This consistency will strengthen the scientific rigor of the data presentation.
4. Clarify the statistical significance of results within the results section, describing how significance was calculated and providing p-values where relevant.
5. Improve the interpretation of results by explaining the biological or practical implications, helping readers understand the importance of the findings.
6. Consider comparing antibacterial activity against multiple positive controls, taking the mode of action into account to enrich the discussion and interpretation of assay results.
7. Focus on narrating the data in an engaging way to highlight its relevance and make the results more compelling for readers.
8. In line 357-358, there’s a need for clarity regarding “Our preliminary results revealed that endophytic fungi exhibited more excellent antibacterial activity against Gram-positive bacteria than Gram-negative bacteria”. Specify the origin of this statement to avoid confusion.
9. Review the entire manuscript to ensure that citations follow the journal’s guidelines, maintaining consistency in referencing style.
The article is written in clear, unambiguous, and technically correct English. Sufficient introduction and appropriately referenced background are included. The structure conforms to the journal format. Tables and figures are appropriate, display data correctly, and are easy to interpret and understand. Data are interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the article.
It is original primary research within the aims and scope of the journal. The research question is well-defined, relevant, and significant; and it identifies the knowledge gap being investigated. The research was conducted with rigor and to a high technical and ethical standard. Methods are described with sufficient detail and information to replicate.
The study has good impact and novelty. All underlying data have been provided in a robust manner, and proper statistical analysis is performed. Conclusions are well-stated, linked to the original research question, and limited to supporting results.
.
.
.
The review is attached.
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.