Systematic Review of the Agro-Ecological, Nutritional, and Medicinal Properties of the Neglected and Underutilized Plant Species Tylosema fassoglense

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

 

I am fine for your revised manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the positive feedback about the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review : Systematic review of the nutritional, medicinal, and agro-ecological properties of the Neglected and Underutilized plant Species Tylosema fassoglense

The manuscript is skillfully written. The results can be presented in a more suitable manner. Ultimately, certain remarks ought to be taken into account.

Title: The axes should be arranged in the same order in the title as they were in the review.so the title should be:

Systematic review of the agro-ecological, nutritional, and medicinal properties of the Neglected and Underutilized plant Species Tylosema fassoglense

Abstract 

-It is crucial to focus on the research results in their totality, particularly the important ones, in order to entice the research reader to study the various components of the research, which is what is lacking in this section, necessitating additional effort.

1. Introduction

At the end of this component of the research, the objective of the research must be explained in a more complete manner, as it allows us to explain the significance of this plant from numerous heritage, social, economic, and nutritional perspectives. And its medicinal aspects... As a result, it is critical to protect this species while also increasing its exploitation and value. It can be used to promote sustainable development in the communities where it is located. Instead of displaying the review axes.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Data collection and analysis

Please include a complete botanical system of the plant under examination, together with one or more clear pictures of the plant.

Paragraph:  from line 155 to line 165. There is no need to mention the authors who did the work, since the roles must be specified in author contributions.

3. Results

3.2 Agro-ecology and distribution

Figure 2: Geographical distribution: The map has deficiencies. The inclusion of the orientation, legend, geographical coordinates, and map scale is necessary.

3.3 Nutritional properties

An analysis of the findings should be included to demonstrate the significance of nutrients in this plant and elucidate the scope of its potential as a food source.

4. Discussion.

Delete the title 4.1 Potential benefits to human well-being and add the content

This section must maintain the same arrangement of axes as in 3. Results. So the following arrangement can be adopted

4. l. Agro-ecological potential and climatic advantages (Potential agro-ecological and climatic advantages

4.2 Nutrition and food security

4.3. Medicinal uses

4.4. Economic potential

4.5. Leveraging local knowledge

4. Conclusion and recommendations

The ideas must be rewritten and arranged in a better way,

Author Response

Thank you so much for the positive feedback. Kindly find attached the a document showing how the comments have been adressed.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Please see detailed comments as outlined below.

The review is well-written, and the study is fascinating contributing to the advancements in the review of Tylosema fassoglense. However, the following comments should be considered:

·  - The paper's formatting needs to be revised according to the journal specifications. Please ensure all text is black and blue text is removed.

·       - In the abstract please explain why this specific species was chosen?

·        -How does the species have potential in food security etc? Briefly state this in the abstract.

·       - Please revise reference style when more than one reference is used throughout the manuscript.

·        -Line 60-Include more examples of staple crops.

·        -Line 80- before the review species is introduced please include a paragraph on why this species was selected.

·        -The information on Tylosema genus is lacking and must be improved.

·        -Please ensure genus and species names are in italics

·        -Instead of stating section 2, section 3 and so on- rather state the heading name.

·        -On what basis were records included or removed?

·       - In the results section- the description of the results could be improved as the information is little.

·        -In the discussion section- 4.1. the potential benefits to human well-being must also be improved.

·        -Nutritional and food security should be expanded since it is one of the main sections this review planned to discuss.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minot English editing required

Author Response

Thank you so much for the positive feedback. Kindly find attached a document detailing how the manuscript has been revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

This review manuscript is suitable for this journal.

However, it can be improved.

1.      I suggest to find more articles. Whether you can expand your literatures from 2010 to this year?

Or try to find related literature in local languages?

2.      I suggest the reference in the introduction can have more previous research for example from 2010 to now.

3.      Please improve the figure 1’s resolution.

4.      I suggest those references and be listed in an order for Appendix 1: Articles on Tylosema fassoglense that were included in the study. Year or first author’s name.

5.      Finally, I suggest to write more on those topics Nutritional, Medicinal, and Agro-eco-2 logical Properties of the neglected and underutilized plant species Tylosema fassoglense. I think this review manuscript can write more.

Author Response

Please see the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The search algorithm for articles is imperfect; for example, a search for publications dealing primarily with Tylossema fassoglanse does not allow finding important publications covering many species. Data on the structure of DNA was beyond the scope of the review. Data on the chemical composition may have been published in works that included other legume species and in databases.

2. Very little important information about T. fassoglinse was included in the article. It is written, for example, that seeds contain proteins, fats, carbohydrates, amino acids, calcium, potassium, molybdenum... The seeds of most plants contain these components in some quantities. To judge the nutritional value of seeds, it is important for readers to know the amount of protein, fat, essential amino acids, digestive enzyme inhibitors, etc.; comparison with other legumes (Soybean, Tylosema esculentum, etc.) is necessary.

3. If there is no data on inhibitory enzymes, they should highlight the gap in your knowledge and point out an important area for further study.

4. It is not said whether local residents cultivate this species or collect it from wild plants. No specific data on the climate of these areas obtained from available reference books is provided. No comparison has been made with agricultural plants, and it is not indicated whether T. esculentum and other legumes can be grown there.

Author Response

Please see the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the article is so poor that it's hard to believe it's a scientific research paper; it feels more like an elementary school report. Regrettably, I must decide to reject it. This article is very poor in terms of the innovation of the research, the reliability of the results, and the accuracy of the statistical methods, among other aspects. I will not participate in the review of this article any further.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the article is so poor that it's hard to believe it's a scientific research paper; it feels more like an elementary school report. Regrettably, I must decide to reject it. This article is very poor in terms of the innovation of the research, the reliability of the results, and the accuracy of the statistical methods, among other aspects. I will not participate in the review of this article any further.

Author Response

Please see the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, needs profound review of literature, scientific names and citations formats. Was detected many errors.

 

Also, the literature it's possible additional references such as:Onyango Adongo, J.; Omolo, J.O.; Njue, A.W.; Matofari, J.W. (2012) “Antimicrobial activity of the root extracts of Tylosema fassoglensis Schweinf. Torre & Hillc (Caesalpiniaceae)” Science Journal of Microbiology, Volume 2012, Article ID sjmb-209, 3 Pages, 2012. doi: 10.7237/sjmb/209

 

In the figure 1 had errors in the right "records excluded= 13" is "3" and successively to "=22". I think? 

 

The table 5 probabily is better in a paragraph as: South Sudan: Juba [35]; ....

The manuscript needs additional review.

Author Response

Please see the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been significantly improved

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am very sorry, but despite the author's revisions, the quality of the article has not improved. The entire article reads more like a student assignment report than a scholarly paper. I must decide to reject it. Additionally, I hope the editors of your journal will respect my opinion, as I no longer wish to be involved with this article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Just so so.