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 glad to report to you that your article has been accepted and I thank you for your patience and willingness to incorporate and assimilate suggestions. I would really like to see this work expanded to and tested in real-life applications.
[# 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 English editing. Therefore, if you can identify further edits, please work with our production group to address them while in proof stage #]
Dear authors, Let me start by apologizing for the delay in this response, which was mainly due to my unsuccessful wait for other reviewers to respond to my call. Before accepting this article for publication, and after having read the manuscript myself, I would like you to discuss the practical implications of your findings. Mainly, how a librarian should/could proceed in order to use these findings? Do you think that a description of a brief step by step recipe could be added to the text? If you were a librarian, how would you use your findings? In my opinion, this description would not only simplify the use of these findings, but also help people who would want to use this technology. Please let me know if this would be possible. After I receive your response, I will make an acceptance determination as soon as possible.
Other comments.
Figure 1. Please change: Relative amount in % to Relative Amount [%]
Figure 4. % inhibition to Inhibition [%]
no comment
no comment
no comment
Fig 4 % inhibition change to inhibition (%)
After reading reviewers comments, I think your manuscript would be greatly improved if you should incorporate into your manuscript the different comments made by the reviewers. Mainly, reviewers are concerned about the poor organization and presentation of the manuscript, English usage, and poor description of your experimental procedures, and lack of statistical analysis. After reviewing and re-organizing your manuscript, it will be sent for a second round of reviews, before it can be considered again for publication. Please try to attend reviewers requests to the best of your ability and feel free to contact me if you have any questions before you re-send the text.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Editor 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) #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
There is a lack of statistical analysis of the experimental results.
no comment
no comments
The paper suggests a new idea and material to fight against fungal contamination to protect cultural heritage.
I review the manuscript. The paper suggests a new idea about using the vapour of kubicin to fight against fungal contamination to protect cultural heritage. However, I would like to comment on some parts that could increase the readability of the paper.
1. Page 6, line 67, “The authors conclude that only the use of 68 ethylene oxide fumigation has long-lasting (one year) effect, but this chemical does not remain 69 on treated materials, so the subsequent contamination is possible”. The sentence is inconsistent
2. Line 139, “To” was removed
3. There is a lack of statistical analysis of the experimental results. No variability parameter (standard deviation, standard error, etc.) was included in tables. Hope you suppling these data.
4. In fig 2 and 3, you need to mark a, b, c on the fig and note what they are for every strain under the fig.
5. In the part of Antifungal effect of kubicin. Is kubicin dissolved in water or in an organic solvent? if it was dissolved in an organic solvent, is there a control group with only added organic solvents?
- English is so poor. English should be reviewed by native speakers.
- Introduction: Too long. It is necessary to shorten the Introduction section.
- Discussion: Too short and few references. No deep discussion about their finding. No discussion about prior studies.
1. Materials & Methods
- All chemicals: Purity should be described.
- Synthesis of kubicin: Mass data?
- Antifungal activity: Only figure (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) is shown. Where is data?
It is necessary to describe fungicidal activity as % or length of inhibition
zone. No statistical analysis. Only one concentration of kubicin was
tested for contact and vapor phase antifungal activity (FIg. 2 and Fig. 3)
- Data for GC-O analysis is only described as text. No figure or table. It is necessary to describe mean and standard deviation (or error).
- Table 1: Only one replication? Describe as mean and standard deviation (or error).
- Table 2: what is unit? uL/mL air?
- Interesting finding but lack of data and poor presentation of their result.
This manuscript is about the antifungal activity of kubicin.
Experimental design and presentation of results are not logic.
This manuscript should be redesigned and rewritten for publication.
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.