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.
Dear author, I have reviewed the minor corrections that were aimed to improve the quality of your contribution, and I confirm that you has complied according to the improvement indications. Our editorial decision is accept.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Julin Maloof, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear author, we have reviewed your manuscript and we consider it necessary to make minor corrections to improve the quality of your work.
Please add citations to any literature that supports your method used in lines 194-202.
Dear author I want to recognize your contribution to this important issue to improve the environment and to know the behavior of physical chemical elements of this variety of Pinus, however we consider it necessary to make minor improvements in order to strengthen the quality of your work.
[# 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/ #]
The review overall is good, however; it needs a little more detail. Specifically where the species to work is referenced. In the body of the document the first time you quote Pinus massoniana Lamb. Put the author (Lamb.), and complete the genus).
The first letter of the genus is capitalized but the epithet is lowercase.
Check your writing well, in some sentences the subject is usually missing when it comes to It.
Try to write not so long paragraphs, example from pages 82 to 101
The experimental design requires support, since the author writes what was done but does not provide scientific support with works by other authors.
For the sample size, there are also works that support the methodology used (Cox, 1981).
Each measured variable says how it was done or what methodology it is used and author it
Acceptable results for a first work on this topic.
Please check the writing structure of the results carefully. Try to get the best scientific benefit. Do not describe what was found but the importance of the results
It is your decision whether you want to consider the opinions expressed here.
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout
The articule was written in english and use clear and tecically correct text.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
The articule include sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate the work fits into the broader field of knowledge and appropriately referenced.
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
The structure of the articule shown an acceptable format.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses
Figure are relevant to the content of the article and approriately described.
This articule was well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated and fills an identified knowledge gap.
This articule shows a rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
Methods used were described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
The articule show results completaly were reached.
The articule content all underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled..
The articule consider all conclusions and were well stated, linked to original research question to supporting results.
No comments related to this articule.
There is neither a table nor figure in the body of the article. I think it is advisable to put the matrix table of the research.
The experimental design is clear. In this part it is important to specify the difference between the research object and the phenomenon to be studied. The object is the pines and the phenomenon the relationship between wáter and macroelements
I think the main research question is ¿ What is the relatinship between the concentration of water and macroelements?
A general conclusión is important. ¿ Is relationship between the amount of wáter and the macroelements in leaves an branches?
Is a great research
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.