Molecular Aspects of MicroRNAs and Phytohormonal Signaling in Response to Drought Stress: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general this paper is very informative and valuable, especially at the level of details. On the other hand some clarification about the types of drought response described by authors are missing. Drought, depending on its level, accompanied stresses, species and organ/tissue can trigger different response. In all of this cases both phytochormones and miRNAs are involved. one gets the impression that the authors present their knowledge by grouping it according to types of hormones without paying special attention to the fact that they are writing about completely different reaction strategies. This should be systematised, for example by discussing reaction types (strategies) in the introduction.

Detailed comments:

1) Table 1: The expression "drought genes" in the title isn't clear (drought tolerance genes? drought response genes?)

2) Table 1: not 'while clover' but 'white clover'

3) Starting from line 350. The long lists of miRNAs up/down regulated in different species should be presented in the table.

4) Line 468: miRNAs aren't lncRNAs, 22 is a rather small number :-)

Author Response

1) Table 1: The title of the table has been revised now 

2) Table 1: The word 'while clover has been replaced white clover'

3) The long lists of miRNAs discussed in the text have been modified 

4) Line 468: sentence revised 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

I have checked your manuscript (cimb-1811080) entitled "Crosstalk of MicroRNAs and Phytohormonal Signaling in Response to Drought: A review" for plagiarism in the iThenticate program before review it. There is a total 42% similarity to the manuscript published before especially in MDPI publications. This rate is not acceptable. You should check this problem and make the necessary corrections. After that, the manuscript can be considered for deep review.

Best regards,

Author Response

While uploading the manuscript we inadvertently uploaded the old and rough drafted version that contained high similarities. New the actual version is uploaded having similarity index within range. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Most of my comments are accepted and the manuscript can be published in the present form.

Author Response

All the changes/suggestions have been incorporated in MS according to reviewers comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author(s),

Please find my comments below:

 

Title

1.    There are many similar titles started with “Crosstalk …..” in Google Scholar. Could you consider a different word from crosstalk?

 

Abstract

2.    I made two corrections. Check them.

 

Text

3.    I have made some corrections, comments and suggestions on mn.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

All the changes/suggestions have been incorporated in MS according to reviewers comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read your manuscript again and you did not completely implement my suggestions. You have not provided line numbers on mn so my comments are below: As I know, new authors must not be added after deep review. The suggested reference could be considered. Mn should be written according to journal system. That is, the cited references in the MDPI should be considered. (Bahrabadi et al., 2021; Sarwar et al., 2017) should be changed. Arabidopsis should be italicized. 

Best regards,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for for your valuable comments and suggestions to improve the mn. 

1-As per your suggestions we have revised the mn and changed the pointed references according to Journal's formate such as line Number. 249

2- The word "Arabidopsis" italicized throughout the mn. 

3- Line numbers have been provided on mn. 

Kindly proceed for further processing. Once again thank you for your precious time and valuable suggestions.