A Field Evaluation of Sodium Silicate and Bacillus subtilis on the Growth and Yield of Bananas following Fusarium Wilt Disease Infection

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

There are several grammatical and spelling mistakes throughout the manuscript.. Some sentences are very long and it not easy to understandable. I can't review this paper at this stage. First of all, you should revise language of this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper entitled: “Field Evaluation of Sodium Silicate and Bacillus subtilis on Growth and Yield of Banana following Fusarium Wilt Disease Infection” presents an interesting work on field evaluation.

 

1.     The abstract should be rewritten avoiding the abbreviation and providing more significance of the work.

2.     The introduction should be extended and more details should be profided on literature review. I recommend this paper on antibacterial materials: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112622

3.     What is the novelty of this work? There were many studies that have worked on combination and multi-generation energy systems. The authors should show clearly the novelty to distinguish their study compared to literature.

4.     Key results and data should be included in the conclusion.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the paper is worth to be published. Please check the formatting, especially the spacing, seems some para use 1, some 1.5. 

Line 180 - random full stop (dot)

Figures, for example, 1, explain what is labelled as a, b, ab, and c?

Figure 2 - add label legend.

Figure 7 - check the one labelled as SS+BS, looks a bit weird on paper.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

it needs to be improved in discussion and finally references better to be checked into the text  (is  a little low in value,  need to be improved also references into the text and the end of the manuscript need to be revised) .

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author, I am glad to see all changes in the revised manuscript. I am satisfied. Thank you

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript have been improved. However, the following minor revision have to be addressed: 

 

1) in reference 1, the surname of authors has to be written without abbreviation, while the given names can be given in abbreviation.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I have no objection to procced for the next step.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx