Screening Soybean Genotypes for High-Temperature Tolerance by Maximin-Minimax Method Based on Yield Potential and Loss
Hugh Gauch
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author/s,
Your research is interesting. Also, your Manuscript has many errors:
- The English can be improved.
- Sentences are too long, unclear, so I suggest you shorten and paraphrase them.
- Whole Manuscript is too long and unclear.
- The Manucript is not write in accordance to instructions.
- Abstract: The abstract is too long.
- Introduction: You did not write why this research is better compared to previous research in this area. The objectives of the research are not clearly written.
- Material and methods: The method is adequate and the experiment is well designed. You did not describe genotypes and all the statistical methods you used.
- Results and discussion: You did not explain the Results. In compare with Discussion, the Results are so long and unclear. Tables and figures are not self-explanattory.
- Conclusion: In the conclusion, you did not write the significance of the research or the significance of the obtained results.
- References: You used adequate literature, but references are not listed in accordance with journal rules. Please, read the instructions on the journal's website.
Author Response
Specific comments
Your research is interesting. Also, your Manuscript has many errors:
Answer: We thank the reviewer for providing useful suggestions that have helped us to further improve this manuscript. Following are the responses to the comments of the reviewer.
Comment-1 The English can be improved.
ANSWER: English has been improved.
Comment-2 Sentences are too long, unclear, so I suggest you shorten and paraphrase them.
ANSWER: Sentences has been shortened.
Comment-3 Whole Manuscript is too long and unclear. The Manuscript is not write in accordance to instructions.
ANSWER: Whole Manuscript has been improved and now has been written in accordance to instructions.
Comment-4 Abstract: The abstract is too long.
ANSWER: Abstract has been shortened.
Comment-5 Introduction: You did not write why this research is better compared to previous research in this area. The objectives of the research are not clearly written.
ANSWER: Introduction has been improved. Despite temperature being a major factor limiting soybean productivity, systematic breeding programs for developing heat tolerant soybean genotypes is lacking owing to a lack of proper field screening techniques, and thus, there are fewer identified genetic sources for temperature tolerance. In this study, soybean genotypes tolerant to temperature were identified and further classified based on their yield reduction. This study provide simple method of selecting or classifying soybean genotypes based on yield potential and yield loss due to high temperature stress. To best of our knowledge findings of this paper are potentially very interesting and of good practical value for the soybean productivity.
Comment-6 Material and methods: The method is adequate and the experiment is well designed. You did not describe genotypes and all the statistical methods you used.
ANSWER: Material and methods section has been improved and detail description of genotypes has been added in the supplementary file. Details regarding statistical methods have been inserted in materials and methods section.
Comment-7 Results and discussion: You did not explain the Results. In compare with Discussion, the Results are so long and unclear. Tables and figures are not self-explanatory.
ANSWER: Results and discussion section has been improved.
Comment-8 Conclusion: In the conclusion, you did not write the significance of the research or the significance of the obtained results.
ANSWER: Conclusion section has been improved.
Comment-9 References: You used adequate literature, but references are not listed in accordance with journal rules. Please, read the instructions on the journal's website.
ANSWER: References has been improved and now listed in accordance with journal rules.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
All my comments and recommendations are noted as sticky notes in the article text in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for providing useful suggestions that have helped us to further improve this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
See attached file.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for providing useful suggestions.
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript is about soybean response to higher temperatures. The introduction and literature review are excellent. The data collection is extensive. The four objectives are clearly stated and well accomplished. And the practical conclusion is clear by recommending the best two genotypes.
Consideration might be given to simplifying Table 3 by means of having the information on LSD and ANOVA in the text and not in the table. This is only a recommendation, not a requirement.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for providing useful suggestions. In the manuscript in all the tables, LSD and ANOVA are presented with the data in table only not in the text for clear explanation of level of significance. Values of LSD and ANOVA are given in the tables while in text we have stated that interaction was significant or not. LSD (Least Significant Difference) is the value at a particular level of statistical probability when exceeded by the difference between two varietal means for a particular characteristic, then the two varieties are said to be distinct for that characteristic at that or lesser levels of probability. Therefore the values of LSD and ANOVA are presented with the data in tables.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for accepting all my suggestion.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for providing useful suggestions that have helped us to further improve this manuscript.
