Effect of Growth Regulators on In Vitro Micropropagation of Stahlianthus thorelii Gagnep
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General: The author name of the species should be written as “Gagnep.” After its first mention, no need to write the author’s name. After its first mention, use “S. thorelii” The text requires editing of English. The manuscript carries little data.
Line 32: Why did the authors give “safflower” example? It is not related to the species studied.
Line 39-40: Sentence fragmentation. Wrong copyediting!
Line 41: Erroneous cite. No need to indicate years and the authors’ first name capitals. “M., Sharma G.J. (2001)[ [8],”
Line 50: Did the authors deposit the voucher specimens of the species in a herbarium? How do they sure about the species? How was the species identified?
Use italics when typing the species name.
Delete unnecessary sentences “The distance between the Biotechnology Laboratory and the Vietnamese capital city was 80 km”.
Use disinfection instead of sterilization. If you sterilize the explants, they die. 700 alcohol = 70%. “The clean samples were presterilized at 700 alcohol for 20 seconds, followed by 20 minutes of sterilization with 0.1% HgCl2.”
Line 62: MS media [13]
Line 63: No such phytohormone “BAP (N6-Benzynladenine Purine)” exists. It is N6-Benzyladenine or 6-Benzylaminopurine
Line 66: Reformulate the sentence. The text requires linguistic editing.
Write the complete forms of NAA, IBA, CRD…
Figure 2: The photos of 4 mg/L BAP and 5 mg/L Kinetin look the same.
Figure 1: There is no such phytohormone “Kinentin.
Line 89: Do not write discussion sentences into the results section.
Tables: The authors should give standard deviations.
Table 2: What does shoot quality mean? How did the authors measure this parameter?
Figure 3: The photo legend is located in the second place of the first line and is absent.
Line 153: Basal MS medium means already control medium without growth regulators. This sentence is problematic and should be corrected. The manuscript needs extensive linguistic correction.
Line 155: “the best rooting result was 23.64 roots/shoot, and the roots were hairy.” This statement is wrong since the best result is 26.17 from 1 mg/L NAA and IBA. The authors should check the data or their statements throughout the manuscript.
Discussion: The authors should not limit their discussion by comparing the previous reports. The physiological background of the action of the PGRs should also be discussed.
Author Response
Thanks to the experts for their input. I answer with word file. Looking forward to the contribution of experts.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the invitation to meet your manuscript titled: Effect of Growth Regulators on in vitro Micropropagation of Stahlianthus thorelii Gagnep. This research is important. The manuscript is generally well written.The results are presented clearly. Appropriate methods of analysis have been
used. Please consider the amendments:
Line 40 and 41 - punctuation improvement, spacing, unnecessary parentheses, start of sentence with a capital letter,
Line 58 and 59 - improvement of the index notation, add the full name of the compound to the chemical formula
Line 74 - verify the notation: "...5.4 g/l Aga, 30 g/l sucrose, NAA..." with the notation in line 66
Line 101 - illegible notation "Different numbers in the same column indicate a significant difference at the 95% confidence 101 level." I propose:
Different letter designations (a,b,c,d,e,f,g) in the same column indicate a significant difference at the 95% confidence level.
Line 130 and 163 - I propose to complete the notation as before
Figure 3 - correct graphics settings, align,
Line 195, 202, 206, 208, 211, 214, 216, 218, 220, 222, 224, 225, 228 - italics "et al."
Line 219 - space in notation "(Zingiber officinaleRosco)".
Line 231 - space in notation "[10]research"
In References correct punctuation marks, spaces, dashes "-" or "-"
In Materials and Methods, there is no information about conducting a correlation analysis.
Author Response
Thanks to the experts for their input. I answer with word file. Looking forward to the contribution of experts.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author
Your manuscript addresses a very interesting topic. However, it is necessary to improve some aspects associated with the presentation of the data.
Best regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks to the experts for their input. I answer with word file. Looking forward to the contribution of experts.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Figure 1 caption: Kinentin should be Kinetin
The manuscript still has limited data and discussion.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
I edited 1. Caption for figure 1: Kinentin should be Kinetin
2. The manuscript still contains limited data
I added the Acclimation of Seedlings in the Tissue Culture section. I hope to improve the data content and scientific content.
Discussion
Improved many discussion sections, and added discussion on acclimation of seedlings in tissue culture. I hope to have enough scientific content. I look forward to reading your comments. Any questions, please send them to the email address: [email protected]
