Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity of Endemic Golden Camellias Collected from China
, Rong Zou 1, Yishan Yang 1, Yunsheng Jiang 1, Faming Wang 1, Shengfeng Chai 1,* and Xiao Wei 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have reviewed the manuscript titled "Genotypic and Phenotypic Diversity of Endemic Golden Camellias Collected from China" submitted to the journal Diversity. Overall, the paper demonstrates a potential contribution to the field, but it requires substantial revisions before being considered for publication. Below are my detailed comments:
Abstract and Introduction:
The abstract does not accurately reflect the manuscript's content. The study's primary focus seems to be on genetic markers in Camellia section chrysantha, yet the abstract discusses the Camellia group and secondary metabolites, which are not thoroughly explored in the paper. The introduction is vague and lacks a clear statement of the research problem. The significance of the study is not well established, and there is no literature review to provide context.
Methods and Data:
The methods section requires significant improvements. The sequencing techniques mentioned (RAPD, AFLP, SSR, dd-RAD) should be explained in more detail, including their relevance and why dd-RAD was chosen. The paper lacks details on the sample population. How were these 30 species of Camellia section chrysantha chosen? Were they representative of a broader population? The methods should provide transparency about the research process, which is currently lacking.
Results and Discussion:
The results are presented in a format that is challenging to follow. The paper jumps between topics without a clear narrative flow. More extensive explanations of the results are necessary, including the significance of the genetic and chemical classifications and the implications of clustering patterns. Additionally, you should discuss the results in the context of existing literature. You should address why the identified reticular taxa are significant and what potential applications this information has. The discussion is crucial for tying together your findings.
Visual Elements:
Tables, figures, and graphs are used in the paper, but there are issues with size and alignment. These visuals should be better integrated into the text, properly referenced, and explained. They should not stand alone; the reader needs to understand their relevance without searching for it.
Organization:
The overall structure of the paper requires improvement. The paper should follow a logical sequence: introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. Each section should be clearly defined and structured.
Recommendation:
I recommend a major revision of this manuscript. It has potential, but it currently lacks clarity, organization, and a strong connection between its components. The focus should be sharpened, the methods elaborated, the results explained, and the language refined. Upon substantial revision, the manuscript should be reconsidered for publication in Diversity. If you have any questions or need further clarification on any of the points mentioned, please feel free to ask.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageLanguage and Presentation:
The manuscript's language and grammar need substantial revision. The text is difficult to read due to long, convoluted sentences, unclear phrasing, and numerous grammatical errors. I recommend having the manuscript reviewed by a native English speaker to enhance its clarity and readability.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
corrections and other notes were made in the manuscript.
Kind regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The sentences are somewhat complex and cause some confusion, making it difficult to interpret some sentences, so I advise authors to send their research to an English-speaking linguistic evaluator.
