Next Article in Journal
Patterns in Tree Cavities (Hollows) in Euphrates Poplar (Populus euphratica, Salicaceae) along the Tarim River in NW China
Previous Article in Journal
NH4+-N and Low Ratios of NH4+-N/NO3−-N Promote the Remediation Efficiency of Salix linearistipularis in Cd- and Pb-Contaminated Soil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/f15030420
Review Report
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Comparative Analysis of Water Isotopic Compositions: Evaluating Isotope Analyzer for Soil and Extraction Method for Stem Water

Forests 2024, 15(3), 420; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15030420
by Jihyeon Jeon 1, Hojin Lee 2, Minsu Lee 1, Jeonghyun Hong 1, Seohyun Kim 1, Chanoh Park 3 and Hyun Seok Kim 1,2,4,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Om Prakash
Forests 2024, 15(3), 420; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15030420
Submission received: 4 January 2024 / Revised: 11 February 2024 / Accepted: 21 February 2024 / Published: 22 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecology and Management)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments

1    1)  Please check the correctness of the pointed temperature values at which the soil water samples were stored until isotope analysis (line 135-137). Were the samples really stored at –70 °C?

      2) In Figure 3 it is absolutely not visible the light gray area indicated the 95% confidence interval of the linear regression.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the paper is interesting and well written, the only difficulty is the numer of used acronyms.

In the attached file few notes on the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After going through the article, following shortcomings are observed:

 1. The abstract section needs to be more clearly articulated. It currently lacks clarity. A revision is recommended. The introduction, objective, key findings, and conclusion should be succinctly and accurately presented.

2. The research gap is not presented in a focused manner.

3. The novelty of the work is not articulated in a concentrated way.

4. The objective of the study is not clearly stated.

5. A state-of-the-art literature review is lacking.

6. The conclusion of the work is not articulated in a concentrated way.

7. The validation of the study with previous scientific articles is not presented in a scholarly manner. This is vague.

8. The author should use more statistical tools for comparison, besides Pearson’s correlation coefficient. They should also plot error bars to show the uncertainty of the measurements.

9. The interpretation of Fig.7 could be improved by being more scholarly and data-driven.

10.  Experimental photograph is missing.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author should enhance the grammar and narrative quality of the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop