Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Cameraria ohridella (Lepidoptera, Gracillariidae) on the State of Aesculus hippocastanum Photosynthetic Apparatus in the Urban Environment
Previous Article in Journal
Modelling Waterlogging Impacts on Crop Growth: A Review of Aeration Stress Definition in Crop Models and Sensitivity Analysis of APSIM
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Genetic Characteristics and Enzymatic Activities of Bacillus velezensis KS04AU as a Stable Biocontrol Agent against Phytopathogens

Int. J. Plant Biol. 2022, 13(3), 201-222; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijpb13030018
by Roderic Gilles Claret Diabankana 1,2,*, Elena Urievna Shulga 1, Shamil Zavdatovich Validov 1 and Daniel Mawuena Afordoanyi 1,3,4
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Int. J. Plant Biol. 2022, 13(3), 201-222; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijpb13030018
Submission received: 23 June 2022 / Revised: 10 July 2022 / Accepted: 14 July 2022 / Published: 18 July 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear  authors

 please revise your manuscript according to my comments in the attached pdf file, and i should revised again the revised version later.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our work. We appreciate all of your hard work done in generating a detailed peer-review of our manuscript. Kingdly find below our response to your comments and suggestions.  All changes in the initial version of the manuscript are in red font color for added words and strikethrough and highlighted in yellow for deleted words.

We have answered all the comments. the responses are attached to this letter with the initial version of the manuscript with modifications done

We hope the revised manuscript will be accepted for publication.

Best regards,

Mr. Diabankana Roderic 

( on belalf of the authors of the manuscript) 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript received for review is well written and clear. Agreement title with the content, correctly selected keywords do not repeat the title. The introduction is clearly written. The methodology and results are written very well. The visual presentation of the results is a plus in this manuscript (in the material I would put information about what was used for the extraction - it is necessary).  . My only remark concerns the first line of the discussion. We don't start the sentence with an abbreviation.

Author Response

Dear  Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our work. We appreciate all of your work done in generating a detailed peer-review of our manuscript. Kindly find below our response to your comments and suggestions. All changes in the initial version of the manuscript are in red font color for added words and strikethrough and highlighted in yellow for deleted words.

We have answered the comments. The responses are attached to this letter with the  initial version of the manuscript with modifications done

We hope the revised manuscript will be accepted for publication.

Best regards,

Mr. Diabankana Roderic 

( On belalf of the authors of the manuscript)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been revised according the comments.

Back to TopTop