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 reviewers' comments and the manuscript is ready for publication.
In the caption for Supplemental Table 1, please tell us where the vouchers have been archived.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Curtis Daehler, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Authors have addressed all the reviewers' comments and the manuscript is ready for publication.
Would it be possible for the authors to reference voucher specimens of these plants in their Supplement Table 1? I suspect the arboretum has already archived vouchers of the plants in a herbarium. It is important to have such herbarium specimens archived and referable for consultation by other researchers in the future.
Critical proof reading of the manuscript is required.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
Dear Editor!
Dear Authors!
The manuscript is clearly written in professional.
Methods is described clearly.
Conclusions are well stated.
I find some little mistakes, for example:
In 256 line on the end of sentences you have a point and a comma, please delete the comma.
The acknowledgement ----is missing one E
At the References, please check the year of publications, I find in some places with bold the years.
Line 455: write the words: less separately
Line 390: write separately: human 1……
I suggest at Figure 1, write the names of Cornus in the alphabetical order of photos. You can write H before I.
The topic of the study is interesting, since the biochemical composition of leaves is studied much less often than fruits. The authors studied the composition of leaves in nine species from the genus Cornus. The results obtained can be used for the therapeutic use of leaves of these species or the extraction of biologically active substances from them.
The title can be supplemented by saying that nine species were used in the study.
The Introduction contains sufficient information on the problem under study.
L. 107-108. The leaf sampling should be described in more detail. Was one tree of each species used or not? What was the age of the trees? Was age the same for all species? How many leaves were collected per tree? From which part of the crown were the leaves collected?
L. 145. “All the experiments were performed in triplicates”. Three trees? Three periods of leaf collection? Three analyses of the same extract? Please explain.
L. 154. “mg/g DW”. Dry weight means drying to a constant weight?
Table 1, Fig. 3. No statistical analysis of differences between species.
L. 72. Cornus mas should be replaced by C. mas.
If the content of phenolic acids are given as “mean ± SE” (L. 153-157), then the same format should be used for glycosides (L. 164-186).
L. 307-312. This paragraph is a short repetition of the previous paragraph (L. 293-305). One of them should be deleted.
Improve Abstract section.
Highlight the research problem in Introduction.
In Figure 3, Improve image quality.
In the material and methods section, check critically for some syntax errors.
Elaborate in detail - the method of statistical analysis.
no comment
Ref: Manuscript ID #111091
Title: Phenolic compounds profiling of dogwood (Cornus L.) leaves
I have reviewed this manuscript ‘Phenolic compounds profiling of dogwood (Cornus L.) leaves’ thoroughly. This manuscript is poorly written and organized but has interesting information. I have reviewed your manuscript and identified some issues. Please go through the file to review raised comments. I suggest further MAJOR REVISION with suggestions is mentioned in the text file.
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.