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 pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication.
The referee suggests that the submission may be publishable, but only after minor revisions have been made to your manuscript (see attached PDF). Therefore, I invite you to respond to his comments and revise your manuscript.
Generally good; however, a few sentences have to be moved to different sections to improve the logical flow
No comment
No comment
See attached comments.
The referees suggest that the submission may be publishable, but only after some major revisions have been made to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to their comments and revise your manuscript.
The main problem throughout the paper is of repetition of information, lack of logical flow especially in the Results and Discussion Section, as well as long (sometimes ambiguous) sentences that make the reading difficult. Also, the writers kept switching between past and present tenses which makes the paper hard to read. Moreover, some facts appear to be contradictory because of poor writing.
The methodology used is adequate and can be replicated but there is a problem with the organization of facts. Although related facts are organized into paragraphs, they are sometimes unnecessarily long with a poor logical flow.
Although the paper presents an objective (given in the first few lines of the Methodology Section) with a worldwide view, the conclusions (and scarcely few future directions) are mainly directed toward Africa. Thus, the scope of the paper is broad at the beginning but narrows down to Africa, particularly Tanzania. I think there is not sufficient justification that the recommendations are applicable to "other tropical countries" as presented in the paper.
Though this review paper contains a lot of valuable information and has a broader view (in respect of groups of organisms discussed) compared with previous ones like Vickery et al. (2009), it lacks the elements that will sustain the reader's interest in reading the paper. Because review papers are generally long, readers become bored if they have to read sentences over and over the get the meaning. The paper has many interesting facts but I had to read most sentences two or three times to get the meaning and how they relate to other preceding sentences.
There are some comments in the text in order to improve clarity.
The fact the Africa has little publication/work on the issue should be pointed out in a better way, there are other regions with same gap.
All report all well referenced.
Clarify what are the meening of WEEDS and how they differ from NON-CROPs.
Table 1 is not necessary, it can be convert it in text. Figure 2 is already in the text, thus it is not necessary.
Figura 4 should be improved.
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.