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.
Thank you for making the necessary changes on your revised version (second round review) of your manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Authors, Your manuscript needs some minor revisions. Please, address the suggestions of the reviewer and re-submit your "Revised Version" copy to PeerJ for further consideration.
Line 155-157 This is not enough to say they you have the pictures of the calli you have to describe it. This is the results. Please describe the color, the structure of the callus etc. This is quite basic for tissue culture works. For references see:
Betekhtin et al (20016) Spatial Distribution of Selected Chemical Cell Wall Components in the Embryogenic Callus of Brachypodium distachyon
Luciani et al (2006) Effects of explants and growth regulators in garlic callus formation and plant regeneration
Dear Authors, Your manuscript needs "Major Revisions" before it is considered for publication in PeerJ. Please, address the external reviewers suggestions, comments and re-submit your "Revised Version" copy to PeerJ for further consideration.
Rev 2 has also submitted an extensively marked up manuscript for you to respond to
Dr. Simon Francis Shamoun,
The line 47-48 something is wrong with the text, its much smaller than the rest.
Line 65 Please add space between – Embryogenic callus and (EC)
Line 120 the Authors have to add the name of the company for reverse transcriptase as for now I can see only the name for TRIZOL. In general the part of RNA sequencing have to be written in more details
Line 126 change from – Eucalyptus grandis to E. grandis, because you have already mentioned Eucalyptus before.
Lin3 137 Embryonic or embryogenic?
Line 187-199 No discussion here with the literature data at all!
The part of the results is very short and in my opinion have to be combined with discussion. The discussion part is extremely week!
Materials and methods part have to be written in much more details.
Something wrong with the formatting! Please correct it, I can't really see some of the pictures.
See attached annotated copy for examples to illustrate these points:
English requires improvement in some parts. See attached annotated copy.
Insufficient references. Some relevant recent references were not included.
REferences style is inconsistent with journal requirements.
Figures and tables are adequate.
Results are explained but need expanding in some parts.
Improve presentation and indicate data anlaysis procedure
The finding is of scientific importance but the Discussion section is not well written. See the annotated copy.
I have made specific comments directly in the attached 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.