Characterization of Sidr (Ziziphus spp.) Honey from Different Geographical Origins
, Fayez M. Al Guthami 2, Mohamed F. A. Ramadan 3, Ahmed F. M. Al Gethami 3, A. Morrie Craig 4 and Salud Serrano 5,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The topic of the article is interesting and important.
2. Research has been well done.
3. The methodology was well presented.
4. In the methodology, the authors refer to statistical analyzes. I miss this element in the presentation of research results. This can be presented in tables and / or graphs (e.g. box-plot). It is true that there is a mention of it in the discussion, but in my opinion it should be included in the presentation of the research results. It will definitely increase the value of this article.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 1 comments:
Authors thank the revision and evaluation of the paper.
Point: In the methodology, the authors refer to statistical analyzes. I miss this element in the presentation of research results. This can be presented in tables and / or graphs (e.g. box-plot). It is true that there is a mention of it in the discussion, but in my opinion it should be included in the presentation of the research results. It will definitely increase the value of this article.
Response: The reviewer is right. Now, all tables show the significance of the results as foot of table.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, I have revised your article "Characterization of Sidr (Ziziphus spp.) honey from different geographical origin". Suggested revises are marked in the attached pdf.
It would be appropriate to expand results tables with p-value or some kind significant statements - without it has a low reporting value.
Also if possible (I understand that there may be a lack of these), add more relevant researches, results to compare with in your discussion.
Please also reconsider formulating your conclusions.
Although there are several major and minor required revises, they are meant in a term of quality.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to reviewer 2 comments:
Author thank the reviewer his/her valuable suggestions
Point one: It would be appropriate to expand results tables with p-value or some kind significant statements - without it has a low reporting value.
Response: Authors thank this comment. Now, significance has been added in each table.
Point 2: Also if possible (I understand that there may be a lack of these), add more relevant researches, results to compare with in your discussion.
Response: Because they are many references and the literacy is up today we have decide not to increase the list but new numeric data have been added in discussion.
Point 3: Please also reconsider formulating your conclusions.
Response: Thanks for this comment. Now, the conclusions are more precise.
Point 4: Although there are several major and minor required revises, they are meant in a term of quality.
Response: Thanks. All required revisions shown in pdf document have been arranged in that document (attached).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, I have checked your article once again and did not find any serious errors, there is no need to attach another version of the article
Although please specify p-value below the all results tables (probably <0,05 for significant and <0,001 for highly significant).
Please check reqiured spaces between paragraphs, unify tables formating, etc., but formating issues is more to be checked by editors.
Therefore my decision is to accept this article after minor revision or in the present form, depending on editors demands.
