Rice Husk Compost Production and Use in Mitigating Ammonia Volatilization from Urea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper is well written and authors have prior experience on publishing on this topic. Please see attached comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find our responses to your comments and suggestions attached in the document. Thank you very much for your kind help on the valuable comments and suggestions. Your kind revision are highly appreciate. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The main idea of the paper is interesting and fits well within the scope of the journal. The article is well-organized and prepared in proper and ordered manner. The work is worth noticing and considering for publication. Nonetheless, some improvements are suggested. All comments and recommendations are listed below in more detail.

• Abstract of the paper is too extensive. It should briefly present the meaningless of the research, its novelty as well as the most important conclusions with a broad perspective on this research area.
• Section 2.1: the number of methods mentioned by Authors should be briefly described (i.e. dry ashing method, the molybdenum blue method, the loss-on-ignition method etc.). In general, the methodology applied has been poorly described and this should be improved.
• Section 4.2., line 456-458: the impact of the electrical conductivity on the seeds’ germinating needs to be discussed more widely to increase the scientific value of the paper.
• Section 4.2., line 456-458: the examples of such organic acids need to be mentioned.
• Final conclusions are too general. They should be more specific and given in a more quantified manner.
• Manuscript should be significantly re-checked grammatically.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have improved our paper according to the comments and suggestions. Section by section and point by point of our responses are attached in the document. We appreciate your kind help and valuable comments to improve the paper. Thank you and best regards,

 

Dr. Latifah Omar

UPM Bintulu Sarawak Campus

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is well-structuder, however, there are significant drawback, that ought to be eliminated before the potential publication.

1. The authors should clearly state the problem of the research in the introduction. By problem, I mean scientific (not practical problem).
2. The authors state the goal of rice farmers, but the scientific goal of the research should be stated in the introduction as well.
3. In the introduction part the authors should explain what is the novelty of their research and how it contributes to the scientific literature.
4. The references are obsolete. The authors have to include more new literature, i.e. articles which were published within the last 2-3 years. This will help authors to show their acquaintance with the recent studies, which in turn, could help to reveal the novelty of the present research.
5. The methodology part is vague. The authors have to clearly explain the methods they use by providing formulas (if applicable).
6. The article's scope does not meet the journal's scope as it does not cover sustainability issue. If it is not included into the article, the article should be rejected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Please find our responses point by point and section by section which attached in the document. We are grateful and appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions which we have affected to improve the paper. 

 

Best regards,

Dr. Latifah Omar

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments and the article could be published in present form.