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.
Based on the reviewers' comments, the manuscript can be accepted for publication by the journal.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Although the Academic and Section Editors are happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage.
The readability of the manuscript has been greatly improved, I have no suggestions.
No comment
No comment
Some (very) minor edits:
Line 97: space after the 4 in 4*C
Line 32: “Chromatographic and mass spectrometry conditions were set following…”
Lines 277 & 289: I’m not sure if these two instances of “” are necessary. If they are quotes from an external publication then they should be cited, but I think these are neologisms so citations are not necessary…I don’t think the terminology is so unique that it requires the “”…if the authors enjoy their inclusion then please disregard. I agree with the usage for lines 280/281.
Line 297: uncapitalize “All”
Please revise the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments.
**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
The manuscript with the title: Extraction, identification and component analysis of exosome-like nanovesicles in Anoectochilus roxburghii (Wall.) Lindl. basically is a report from analytical studies of chemical compositions of the plant. The result is actually interesting, especially to my concern is that the quantity of chemicalsinvestigated in the plant gown in soil is much higher that its quantity in plant grown in hydrophonic. Unfortunately there is not enough discussion regarding the result such as why this difference in chemical quantitity is happened.
In the section of materials and methods, the manuscript did not mention references used at all, as if the methods conducted in the experiment never been used by other works, or the method is something universal where there is no refence is needed there.
The finding is interesting, whoever it need more discussion, i.e. comparison with other works.
The manuscript need more elaborate discussion in comparing the result with other works and explanation why the result showed as mentioned.
The language is clear but could use refinement and a closer edit to catch minor issues in capitalization, proper use of italics, and describing an acronym prior to using it. The figures presented are clear and easy to understand, I did not check every reference but a superficial review of the references revealed only 1 that I recommended removing. One aspect of their Results (hydroponic vs soil grown plants) was not described in the introduction or methods sections, and needs to be addressed, but it was clear why they analyzed both types in the Results.
No comment, the experimental design was thorough for the scope of this paper.
No comment.
This was an interesting manuscript, I enjoyed reading the authors' work and I look forward to seeing what can be done with A. roxburghii in the future.
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.