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.
I would like to thank you for accepting the referees' suggestions and improving your article based on their suggestions. Your article is ready to publish. We look forward to your next article.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Dezene Huber, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The title now reflects the main idea of the manuscript, thank you for the revision.
Ok
Ok
Ok
I appreciate your positive and constructive attitude toward the suggestions of reviewers. However, your article needs some minor revisions to improve before publishing. Please carefully read the reviewer's comments and consider each of them. If you find yourself in disagreement with any particular suggestion, it would be beneficial to provide clear and well-reasoned justifications for your perspective.
First, I would like to thanks authors for incorporating all the suggestions and comments. The manuscript now looks well structured and scientifically valid. So, I suggest acceptance with one minor suggestion as below.
I am still not convinced with the title of the manuscript. To me, title is something that reflects the major focus of the study and more importantly, more than half of the readers decide either to read the manuscript or not solely on the basis of title. Thus, I do not think the word "phenological traits" used in the title is justifiable as there is no single description, results and discussion on this trait. So, my suggestion is to change the title that reflects the modeling work only.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The revision has improved the ms.
Several statements in the revised ms or not elegantly connected.
ok
ok
ok
I appreciate your constructive attitude toward the reviewers' suggestions and improving your article based on their suggestions. Although your article has been revised according to their suggestions, it needs more improvements. Carefully consider each recommendation, assessing its relevance and potential to enhance your work. If you find yourself disagreeing with any specific suggestion, it is important to provide clear and well-reasoned justifications, supported by evidence where applicable, to substantiate your perspective.
The study lacks a lot of information, the title and the body do not align with each other.
Not enough clarity.
Modelling work is valid. But I suspect the biological/phenological results as the authors do not provide the sufficient evidence for the drawn results.
The manuscript should be reviewed from professional language editor to minimize the redundancy.
The revision has improved the first version.
In the introduction, you correctly mention that Phacellanthus is a parasitic plant with interesting medicinal properties. You need to mention that species of the Orobanchaceae take up secondary metabolites from their host plants (and not only nutrients)- there are many publications on this topic (check the literature).
These sequestered secondary metabolites are responsible for the pharmacological activities.
ok
ok
no
Medicinal plants hold significant potential as sources for new medicines. Therefore, I believe your study could provide valuable insights for growers and plant collectors in identifying more suitable habitats for Phacellanthus tubiflorus. However, it is important to address certain technical aspects to enhance the clarity of your article. I strongly recommend carefully reviewing the reviewers' suggestions and thoughtfully considering each recommendation. If you disagree with any suggestion, it would be helpful to provide clear, well-reasoned justifications for your viewpoint. Additionally, your article would benefit from linguistic refinement. I suggest seeking assistance from a colleague or utilizing our editing service to ensure the language is polished and professional.
The idea seems naïve but the way of presenting and writing needs a lot of improvement. The authors are just throwing the sentences randomly throughout the text which lacks cohesion. More importantly, the introduction and discussion sections do not hold clear information, and the readers only guess what the study is about after reading the methods and results.
The writing needs to be reviewed by a professional English reviewer.
Methods seem good but the research questions are not well-defined and some of the results presented in the result section are not described clearly in the methods.
Overall, the concept is ok but the presentation is poor.
The findings are trustworthy but need to be redone by incorporating some suggestions made in the method section.
The validation approach is new, but it is a bit directionless which should be addressed in the revised version.
There is no clear input to the next step and a lot of information (for example, the interpretation of results) is lacking.
The English needs improvement from a native speaker.
Introduction, Discussion and Conclusions should be better organized and more informative.
Phacellanthus is a hemiparasitic plant which sequesters secondary metabolites from their host plants. Thus host plants determine the metabolic profile and pharmacology of Phacellanthus. This topic needs to be explored in more detail.
Which secondary metabolites have been recorded from Phacellanthus? What are their pharmacological properties?
For such an analysis it is important to include all sites where the plant has been found.
Look here
https://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0001089291
You all need to check all the herbaria, not only the Chinese Herbarium online
The quality of the modelling strongly depends on the input data. What is the coverage of the existing literature and herbarium data?
Title. tubiflorum not with capital
Distribution: check https://www.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0001089291
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.