Construction and Evaluation of Pepper Core Collection Based on Phenotypic Traits and SSR Markers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction explains very well why this experiment was necessary to be carried out. The aim of the experiment is clearly stated. The chapter “Materials and Methods” needs to be corrected. In the subchapter Plant materials and field evaluation, it is necessary to state in more detail how the experiment was conducted. In the next paragraph, it is necessary to highlight the observed traits either with numbers, letters, etc. It is necessary to correct the displayed formulas. Commenting on the obtained results should be done with greater specificity. Terminology should be used properly; for example, pepper accessions cannot be materials or resources. In the chapter Discussion, it is necessary to discuss the obtained results and compare them with the results of other research. Point out advantages and achievements. Discussion is not just summarizing other research's results.

 

Specific comments:

Lines 2-3: In the title, instead of the word pepper, it is better to say Chilli or Chilli pepper - it is clearer which type of pepper it is.

Line 33: Not all species belonging to the genus Capsicum are called peppers.

Lines 34: Solanaceae put in italics

Line 36: Capsicum put in italics

Lines 37-38: Put C. annuum in italics

Line 50: The term spiciness should be replaced, in this case, with the corresponding term pungency

Line 59: Does the word "resources" mean samples? - it would be more correct to say accessions

Line 62: 1220 different pepper accessions

Line 63: cannot use such terms "1150 materials" - change to accessions

Line 67: introducing different pepper genotypes

Lines 95 and 98 – replace the term resources with accessions

Lines 109-110: Each plot consists of 10 plants. Emphasize the spacing between plants and which was between rows.

Lines 133-137: The formulas for all 4 types are the same, and the clarification in the text below is not related to the formulas shown before. There are no Hi, Pij and n in the mentioned formulas.

Line 139: Start the sentence with a capital letter.

Lines 154-160: Same as previous formulas. All 3 are the same, and the text is not consistent with the formulas.

Lines 203-206: Latin names of species should be written in italics

Lines 215-217: 155 tested accessions or genotypes; put Latin names in italics

Line 217: Instead of starting the sentence with an abbreviation, put the full name.

Lines 215-230: Check all Latin names and put them in italics; It might be better to merge the first and second sentences into one; This paragraph needs to be improved. When commenting, it is important to specify the varieties in a clear and concise manner and to provide a clearer explanation of the results. English has to be improved.

Line 266: 6 instances - the term is not appropriate

Lines 272-274: Rewrite the sentences to make them clearer.

Lines 287-297: Commenting on PCA results is not clear. State what the eigenvalues represent; What do these results actually represent, and are these differences statistically significant.

Lines 287-288: This sentence is not clear. It must be rewritten. Where values exceeded 1, why are there only 7 PCs?

Lines 385: This should be deleted. Figures and tables must be placed in the text where they belong.

Table 3 - In the header, standardize the way you state - uppercase initial letter, abbreviation in parentheses

Table 6: What does "Tables may ha" refer to?

Lines 437: What does the term "Basic" represent?

Line 439: Maybe a better term instead of "aid" is "help"

Line 442: instead of materials, it is better to use accessions

Line 446: Instead of resources, it is better to use accessions

Lines 447-449: The whole sentence must be corrected, it is not clear in this form.

Lines 480-483: The whole sentence must be corrected, it is not clear in this form.

Lines 484-486: Use accessions instead of materials; Put Latin names in italics

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are lots of errors, giving the impression that the document was not proofread before submission. The manuscript is difficult to understand. It is necessary to proofread to improve the quality of the English language. It is necessary to change some expressions, and some sentences have to be rewritten to make them easier to understand.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript authored by Deng et al reports on Construction and Evaluation of Pepper Core Collection Based on Phenotypic Traits and SSR Markers.  The material and the experiments in the current study are useful as preliminary analyses of core collection. Below are few suggestions:

1. The presence of common accessions between core sets constructed using different types of data are missing. Please add this information and explain whether there is overlap in genetic and phenotypic components. 

2. There are many  clustering methods, and the clustering results produced are also different. The authors utilized only average method for clustering, while their clustering method may or may not be suitable strategy for constructing core collection. Please explain and clarify whether the single clustering method is suitable for constructing the best subset.

#minor 
1. Please check the formulas in line 133 the formulas must corrected

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is fine and require some minor revisions

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our article. Our manuscript has undergone extensive English revisions and attached the Editing Certificate.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Everything has been corrected following the suggestions. Manuscript