Quantitative Calculation of the Most Efficient LED Light Combinations at Specific Growth Stages for Basil Indoor Horticulture: Modeling through Design of Experiments
, Francesco Barbieri 1, Claudia Taurino 1,2, Alessandro Bertacchini 1,3,4,* and Monia Montorsi 1,3,4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors presented the effect of different LEDs on basil growth. The topic is interesting and fits within the journal’s scope. Nonetheless, the paper has a series of drawbacks which must be solved before considering the paper for publication. Following, I include a list of the most relevant drawbacks:
Major issues:
In the introduction, the aim of the paper, as well as its novelty, must be added and highlighted. Consider using bullet points to clarify this issue.
A related work section is mandatory for topics for which previous experiments have been conducted. Please add a section in which state-of-the-art is summarised.
Results and discussion should be split into two sections. Another option is to use subsections. Whichever option is chosen by the authors, they must analyse the figures individually first and then show the overall discussion. In the current version of the manuscript, it is not easy to find the comments for each one of the figures. In the discussion, authors must also present the comparison of their results with existing publications and indicate if their findings are aligned with current knowledge. Other aspects to be analysed in the discussion are the main limitations of the test and results, the possible transference of results to other sp, and the impact of the results on greenhouses and vertical farming. The cost of using these solutions compared with existing illumination is also an interesting aspect to be analysed.
In conclusions, future work must be added in a new paragraph.
Minor issues:
The abstract should be extended. Consider the possibility of adding the results, for example, highlighting the light combination, which maximises basil growth.
Add more keywords; consider greenhouse, illumination, or artificial light, among others.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Barbi et al. studied the most efficient LED lights for basil indoor horticulture. Experiments were carried out to reach the purpose of their study. The manuscript is suggested to be accepted after the following issues are addressed.
Major recommendations
1. Lines 110-111: ‘… the aim is the quantitative calculation through statistical methods …’ The authors should clarify the aim of their study. Performing only numerical calculations cannot be the aim of the study. Moreover, the manuscript presents the results of experiments.
2. The authors should underline the novelty of their study. Moreover, authors’ hypotheses would inforce this study.
3. The Results and Discussions Section: the text should be compared thoroughly with other articles on similar subject.
Minor recommendations
1. Lines 17-19: Why did the authors post this text?
2. Line 27: ‘… Warm White (3000 K) …’ In my opinion, wavelengths of light are better to be used.
3. Line 27: ‘… (60, 70, 80 cm), …’ it is better to use the following wording ‘(60, 70, and 80 cm)’.
4. Figures. The authors should not us indents in captions.
5. The authors should avoid small paragraphs (for example, Lines 130-131).
6. The text following an equation need not be a new paragraph (lines 237-238).
7. The prospects for further research should be more specifically and clearly described.
8. In my opinion, The Results and Discussions Section should be divided by subheadings. This will make the material easier to understand.
9. Lines 348-349: ‘From the calculated coefficients reported in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 mathematical models can be derived in terms of equations and graphs.’ If the authors mentioned mathematical models, then they should present them.
10. Figure 10: The authors should add all units (for all axes).
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors need to solve the comments of the first review round. Most of my comments were not properly addressed. I suggest considering the comments, improving the manuscript and then resubmitting it again. The related work and discussion information are mandatory in these papers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The discussion has been improved.
