Soil Is Still an Unknown Biological System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see attached report.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please find the attached file. Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article have multiple problems caused by the reduced number of references used. Also, the hierarchy in the presentation of ideas affects the flux of the entire article and makes it very hard to be read and understood.
References [7] was cited 8 times, [25] - 7 times, [8],[11] - 5 times, [23] - 4 times.
Abstract. It need to be rewrite in terms of shorter sentences. Ex: L7-9 Split in two sentences, also for L14-17
Introduction - the introduction is too short for this kind of article. Please add some new paragraphs.
L26 composed by a solid. L26-28. Split in 2 sentences, too long.
L29 that is the organization and arrangements of soil particles
L29-30 influences its biological, chemical and physical properties of soil.
L35 atmospherice.
L48-51 Rewrite. You need to say that your mini review is focused on some important aspects of soil properties related to their inhabitants.
2. Properties of soil as a biological system
2.1. Who is living there, what they do and as they are distributed - The entire subsection is confusing and present a lot of sparse ideas with a weak connection between them.
L54-61 Split in multiple sentences. Your sentences are too long and is hard to be read.
L61-63. One example is not enough. Add more values for arable land and for forest etc.
L81-83 In addition to soil microorganisms, protozoa, nematodes, microarthropods, macroarthropods, Enchytraeidae and Earthworms, collectively termed soil fauna, can inhabit soil. - reference
L64-90. The ideas are not very well linked between sentences. It looks like a report.
L69 from 237 locations across 18
L93-97. Split in two sentences.
2.2. The role of important biological molecules adsorbed or entrapped in soil. Make the entire subsection longer. You just talk about enzymes and DNA at a very general level.
L110-120. Make sentences shorter. Add more references.
2.3. Interactions between microbes, between microbes and plants and between microbes and fauna
The section is long enough, but is based to much on references 7 and 25. This need to be changed. There are paragraphs with only 1 reference or 2, which is not good for a review. You need to use more references.
2.4. The main research approaches - similar to the rest of sections. More references. Short sentences.
3. Perspective
The section length is good but the limited number of references used was low. It need to be rewritten and reinterpreted based on multiple references.
There are too many for example (8)/example in the article. The ideas should be discussed as important for the aim of the article, not as examples.
The author stated at the end of introduction:
By considering the seven grand questions proposed by Selman A. Waksman in 1927 [6], I discuss some progresses but also the permanence of some knowledge gaps despite more than 93 years of research.
But the article is written form other perspectives and Selman`s ideas came at the end, so I think it should be presented at the begining of the article.
Author Response
Thank you for your reviewing. Please find the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author have improved the article and made some changes in the main text and now the article is easier to read and understand. I still suggest to review all comments from round one before making the final version of the article.
The idea of focusing on Selman Waksman question is main advantage of your work.
As a suggestion - some values (as example microbial biomass) can be added as table in text. It will not modify the length of the article but will provide a larger number of information that can be further cited.
It is not ethical to request a reviewer to suggest references.
Author Response
I wish to thank the reviewer for the positive comments. I have included the table with values of microbial biomass C and microbial biomass N expressed as kg ha-1 as suggested by the reviewer (see L 86-89 and reference 10 in red character).
As it concern the ethical reasons for not giving references I do not agree with the reviewer. As Editor-in-Chief of Biology and Fertility of Soils I am pleased when reviewers give references (only few also for their papers if they are important) if these suggestions are pertinent because nowadays one of the most critical problems is ignoring past bibliography. Ethical problem arise when reviewers give references which are not pertinent and they are too many. To know bibliography is important for the advancement of science.
