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,
Thank you very much for addressing the issues raised. I can now recommend the publication of the article.
Best regards,
Fernando
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for addressing the issues raise. Please address the following items noted by the Section Editor:
+++ Beginning of the abstract (lines 13-15) needs to be re-written to be more understandable by non specialists.
+++ Writing needs to be cleaned up before publication.
+++ Words after semicolons should not be capitalized.
+++ Need consistent spacing after punctuation.
+++ lines 56, etc...need possessive after authors name +++ lines 100-105 this is not a sentence.
+++ line 100 less snowfall than what?
+++ lines 117 - 143 (and elsewhere in methods) this should be past tense and describe what was done rather than being a set of instructions.
+++ lines 175-179 the formatting is wrong, with the word "the" being split across lines for many of the definitions.
+++ line 182 please give citation or URL for DPS19 software.
+++ many abbreviations are not defined (AMMI and GGE for starters)
+++ 219 - 221 this is fragmented and needs context.
+++ "Fitness" is often misleading or incorrect in this manuscript. Fitness should only be used to refer to reproductive success.
**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 authors, thanks for addressing the statistical issues raised. I have only a couple of remarks regarding your writing that need your attention before recommending publication:
Beginning of the abstract (lines 13-15) needs to be re-written to be more understandable by non specialists.
+++ Words after semicolons should not be capitalized.
+++ Need consistent spacing after punctuation.
+++ lines 56, etc...need possessive after authors name
+++ lines 100-105 this is not a sentence.
+++ line 100 less snowfall than what?
+++ lines 117 - 143 (and elsewhere in methods) this should be past tense and describe what was done rather than being a set of instructions.
+++ lines 175-179 the formatting is wrong, with the word "the" being split across lines for many of the definitions.
+++ line 182 please give citation or URL for DPS19 software. +++ many abbreviations are not defined (AMMI and GGE for starters)
+++ 219 - 221 this is fragmented and needs context.
+++ "Fitness" is often misleading or incorrect in this manuscript. Fitness should only be used to refer to reproductive success.
Best regards,
Fernando
Dear authors,
Thanks for your explanations. There are, however, still two issues to clarify. While conducting an ANOVA, the prerequisite is not the normal distribution of data, but the normal distribution of the residuals. So, you would need to address this issue.
Also, concerning the correlations, you need to state which correlations you are referring to based on their prerequisites (parametric - Person's) or non-parametric (Spearman's).
Look forward to seeing these issues addressed and recommend the manuscript for publication.
Best regards,
Fernando
Dear authors,
I still have concerns with your statistical approach. The verification of prerequisites is not clear, both for ANOVA and correlations. Also, if you have only two years to compare, you should be using a paired t-test and not repeated measures (joint is not the correct name) ANOVA. Please seek statistical advice. In terms of prerequisites, while using an ANOVA, you need to check the normality of residual distribution, however, with a paired t-test, you need normally distributed data. While reporting, please state the results of the prerequisite analysis and the results of the statistics, including all p-values (even for prerequisite testing). If your data does not meet the prerequisites, you should be using a non-parametric test for repeated measures (Wilcoxon test with two variables).
NA
NA
NA
The authors have addressed all coments
Dear authors,
Before deciding to accept or not this manuscript, I need a full clarification of your statistical approaches.
Please describe with accuracy your statistical approach, including tests, prerequisites for your chosen tests, and comprehensively report the results, highlighting the significant differences found.
Through your writing style, I can see that expertise in statistics is not your strongest side. I would recommend consulting a statistician to address the issues I am raising. Please refer to the instructions for authors for full recommendations on statistical matters.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have addressed all coments perfectely
Dear authors,
Please revise the article according to the reviewer's comments.
NA
NA
NA
#### Comments: -
The title is clear and informative but could potentially be more specific about what "different vintages" refers to in the study.
- The abstract is quite comprehensive, however, it suffers from some typographical errors and a few unclear expressions.
#### Suggestions: - Title: Consider specifying the exact meaning of "different vintages" or rephrasing it for clarity.
- Abstract: Ensure clarity and correctness. For instance: - Line 14: Add space between "Objective" and "1Fitness". The sentence could be rephrased for better readability. - Line 17: The expression "0Methods1" and similar occurrences seem to have typographical errors; it should be corrected. Introduction (Page 1-2) #### Comments: - The introduction provides a solid background on the significance of cotton cultivation in Xinjiang and the importance of fitness analysis in breeding. - Several references to past studies are integrated to reinforce the research context. #### Suggestions: - Clarity and Flow: Enhance readability by breaking down long sentences into shorter ones. - Example: Lines 37-39 can be split into two sentences: "Xinjiang has unique climatic conditions and a geographical environment advantageous for cotton cultivation. It stands as the largest cotton production base in China [1-2]." - Contextual Details: Explain technical terms when they're first introduced (e.g., "GGE bilabelled plots") to ensure the readers' understanding. Methods (Page 2-3) #### Comments: - The study design, including the formation of hybrid combinations, is well-outlined. - Description of the data measurement process over two years is clear. #### Suggestions: - Detailed Explanation: Provide a more detailed description of the environmental conditions in the study years to highlight potential variables affecting yield traits. - Example: Elaborate on the climate, soil type, and agricultural practices applied during the study years. - Statistical Methods: Ensure the statistical methods used for analyzing the data (e.g., ANOVA) are thoroughly described with references to relevant statistical theories or models. Results (Page 3-5) #### Comments: - The results section includes critical findings, particularly regarding the interaction between genotype and environment. - Clear identification of dominant parents and combinations. #### Suggestions: - Data Presentation: Use visual aids like graphs and tables to present complex data more effectively. - Example: Include figures showing the performance of yield traits across different years and combinations. - Interpretation: Provide a clearer interpretation of statistical significance and its implications for the findings. - Example: Elaborate on the implications when mentioning "significant or highly significant levels" on line 23. Discussion and Conclusion #### Comments: - The discussion succinctly connects the study's findings to existing literature. - The conclusion effectively summarizes the practical applications of the research. #### Suggestions: - Comparative Analysis: Conduct a deeper comparison between your findings and those of similar studies. - Example: Discuss more thoroughly how your results compare with those of studies mentioned on lines 50-60. - Future Research: Suggest specific areas for future research to validate and expand on your findings. - Example: Mention prospective studies that could explore other environmental variables or apply similar methods to different crop species. General Comments and Minor Revisions - Typos and Formatting: There are several minor typographical errors and formatting inconsistencies throughout the manuscript. - Example: The expression "0Methods1" should be corrected throughout the sections. - Page 1, Line 14: "objective1Fitness" should be "objective: Fitness". - Consistency: Ensure consistency in terminology and units of measurement. - Example: Confirm that terms like "general fitness" and "special fitness" are used consistently throughout the text to avoid confusion. Recommendations: 1. Proofreading: Perform a thorough proofread of the entire manuscript to correct typographical errors and ensure consistency in formatting. 2. Data Visualization: Integrate more visual aids such as figures and tables to enhance data comprehension and presentation. 3. Detailed Methodology: Expand on the environmental conditions and statistical methods used for clearer understanding and reproducibility. 4. Extended Discussion: Broaden the discussion section by comparing more extensively with existing literature and suggesting avenues for future research. By addressing these points, the manuscript can be significantly strengthened, providing clearer insights and making it more compelling to the academic community. Feel free to let me know if you need further assistance with any specific section or aspect of your manuscript.
The manuscript is written in clear and professional English, ensuring unambiguous communication of research findings. The authors have provided sufficient field background and context, supported by relevant and recent literature references. The structure adheres to professional standards, including well-organized sections, appropriate use of figures and tables, and sharing of raw data for transparency. The study is self-contained, with results directly addressing the stated hypotheses, offering valuable insights into the subject matter.
The experimental design is robust, with a clearly defined and meaningful research question addressing a significant knowledge gap in the field. The study is conducted with a rigorous approach, adhering to high technical and ethical standards. Methods are described in sufficient detail, ensuring reproducibility and enabling validation of the findings.
The findings are valid, supported by robust, statistically sound, and well-controlled data, with all underlying datasets provided.
The manuscript entitled, “Analysis of fitness and stability of yield traits in upland cotton under different vintages”, presents a comprehensive evaluation of fitness and stability of yield traits in upland cotton, emphasizing the environmental influence on parent selection and hybrid performance.
The study effectively presents the study's purpose, methodology, and key findings, but could be streamlined for clarity and impact. Article can be accepted after minor improvements.
However, while the research offers significant insights, several areas require refinement for enhanced clarity, scientific rigor, and impact.
However, following improvements are required for publication,
The “abstract” is dense with technical terms and specific results (e.g., "combination 15 (cm3× Xinluzhong59)") that might overwhelm readers or distract from the main message.
While the influence of the environment is emphasized, the abstract does not specify which environmental factors (e.g., temperature, rainfall) had significant effects.
Include key statistical metrics to enhance credibility and clarity.
The "Materials and Methods" section is robust and provides a solid foundation for the study, though it could benefit from improved readability and better justification for methodological choices.
Heavy use of technical terms (e.g., GCA, SCA, SSg, SSge) without sufficient context may alienate non-specialist readers.
The formulas and analysis methods are introduced but lack examples or interpretation of their application to the study data.
Issues like inconsistent numbering (e.g., "85 Overview of the study area") and improper symbols (e.g., "ÿ") reduce the section’s professional presentation.
Heavy reliance on terms like “general cooperativeness” and “special co-ordination” without sufficient explanation may confuse readers unfamiliar with the methodology.
Potential limitations of the study, such as the restricted two-year timeframe or location-specific factors, are not addressed.
The “discussion” does not explore how findings might generalize to other cotton-growing regions or contribute to global breeding strategies.
The “conclusion” does not place the findings in a wider agricultural or global context, limiting its broader relevance.
While eight combinations are recommended, their specific advantages or contexts for use (e.g., particular environments or breeding goals) are not clearly detailed.
Suggest follow-up studies, such as exploring molecular mechanisms, broader geographical trials, or long-term environmental interactions.
The article is well-organized, but minor revisions in grammar, structure, and conciseness will enhance its clarity and impact. The recommendations align well with the findings, showcasing a balanced approach to conservation and sustainability.
The article is well-structured and provides a strong rationale for the study, though it could benefit from a more critical evaluation of historical references and a clearer focus on the practical implications
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.