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 am very happy with the final paper and it is a pleasure to congratulate you.
Please consider the comments of both reviewers and a few remarks in my own annotated file.
See attached PDF
See attached PDF
See attached PDF
See attached PDF. The authors must attend to the editorial edits in that PDF. With that done, I have no objection to the publication of this paper.
The work presents an important and current problem of monitoring and control of agricultural production in the aspect of water protection.
All substantive corrections brought by the authors of the publication are sufficient and satisfying. The work is suitable for publishing in PeerJ - the Journal of Life & Environmental Sciences.
However, the publication requires editorial corrections. In many places, there is no space between words. In Polish names, authors sometimes use Polish characters, and sometimes not (eg. Gdańsk - Gdansk). This should be harmonized. Some units in headers in the tables, they need corrections (eg. should be kg·ha-1).
No comment
No comment
No comment
The manuscript addresses a very interesting subject, both for farmers and decision makers. It is relevant and scientifically sound. However, some aspects can be considerably improved. Both reviewers recommend major revisions and I agree with them. I think that the questions raised by the reviewers are not very difficult to be addressed, particularly taking into account that they are both very helpful.
Please consider the recommendations and suggestions made by both reviewers. They will undoubtedly help you to improve the manuscript. I have also included some comments on my annotated manuscript.
Reviewer 1 has done a nice work editing the manuscript. I recommend you to follow his suggestions. Only in lines 102-105, I would leave the sentence «“WaterPUCK” project (“Modelling of the impact of the agricultural holdings and land-use structure located in the Puck Commune on the quality of water in the Bay of Puck – Integrated information and forecasting Service ‘WaterPUCK’”)» as it is, because it is the name of the project. In lines 139-154, mostly agreeing with reviewer 1, I would maintain the distinction between “masses of nutrients brought onto (into?) a farm” and “amount of nutrients exports from the farm”.
One of the weaknesses of the manuscript, according to reviewer 2, is the Introduction. Please improve it following his suggestions.
In addition, the Discussion can be improved, according to reviewer 2. Reviewer 1 recommends merging “Results” and “Discussion”. I am not sure of this, as the Instructions for Authors of PeerJ recommend using “Results” and “Discussion” as separate sections “where possible”. Anyway, the Discussion must be improved.
The Conclusions should also be improved, according to reviewer 2.
The English is quite correct (although improvable, as reviewer 1 shows) along the manuscript, excepting the conclusions, that look as if the authors were tired when they get there. In addition to the contribution of reviewer 1, an English-speaking person could help further improve the English. Some words need to be checked: income, intake, revenue, expenditure…
As for the list of references, I would not worry too much. See the PeerJ Instructions for Authors for reference format; however, as the journal staff says, “PeerJ prefers you spend your time doing science, not formatting references”.
Follow the recommendations of reviewer 2 relative to Figures and decimal comma. As for the units, kg/ha (or kg.ha-1; please unify), although does not belong to the SI, is of common use in agronomy and acceptable for PeerJ.
.
.
.
Annotated pdf is attached.
Please, see attachment
Please, see attachment
Please, see attachment
Please, see attachment
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.
Excellent Review