Heterosis Studies for Root-Yield-Attributing Characters and Total Alkaloid Content over Different Environments in Withania somnifera L.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study is of great importance. However, English is not clear, this manuscript has too many tables. Sentences are not easy to follow.

Additional comments:

1.       Line 18. Change “cultivar” to “cultivars”.

2.       Line 23. Sentence is unclear.

3.       Line 18. Sentence is unclear.

4.       Line 39. Autogamous and self-pollinated are

5.       Introduction. The necessity and importance of the study is not indicated.

6.       Materials and Methods. This section is not clear at all.

7.       Table 5. This should go to supplementary data.

8.       There are too many tables that should go to supplementary data.

Author Response

We thank Dr. Alice Fang, Assistant Editor, Editorial team and Reviewers for their time to review our manuscript " Heterosis study for root yield attributing characters and total alkaloid content over different environments in Withania somnifera L." Manuscript ID: agriculture-2251506 and providing valuable suggestions. We have modified our manuscript as per the recommendations and addressed all the required comments of reviewers. We are confident that the editor/reviewers will find our revised manuscript suitable for publication in your esteemed journal.

The detailed responses to the Editor and Reviewers’ comments are listed below:

Editor: If one of the referees has suggested that your manuscript should undergo extensive English revisions, please address this issue during revision. We propose that you use one of the editing services listed at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english or have your manuscript checked by a native English-speaking colleague.

Response: Thank you very much, the revised manuscript is addressed this valuable suggestion. The Ms. was checked by native speaker for language and grammar. We had also used Grammarly for language improvement.

Reviewer 1: This study is of great importance. However, English is not clear, this manuscript has too many tables. Sentences are not easy to follow:

Response: Thank you very much, esteemed reviewer, the revised manuscript is addressed this valuable suggestion. The Ms. was checked by native speaker for language and grammar. We had also used Grammarly for language improvement. Few sentences were reframed for better understanding. Few tables were added in the supplementary files. This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

Additional comments:

1. Line 18. Change “cultivar” to “cultivars”.
2. Line 23. Sentence is unclear.
3. Line 18. Sentence is unclear.
4. Line 39. Autogamous and self-pollinated are
5. The necessity and importance of the study is not indicated.
6. Materials and Methods. This section is not clear at all.
7. Table 5. This should go to supplementary data.
8. There are too many tables that should go to supplementary data.

Response: All the above-mentioned comments were addressed in was added in the revised Ms. as per the suggestions.

Reviewer 2: Reviewed paper presents data about Ashwagandha crop improvement. Paper is well-written and understandable despite the large amount of data. I have three major comments:

1. Please complete the missing information about the units in the tables, plant height, root diameter, etc.

Response: This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

2. Improve the Reference order - line 39 - there is [2,17] should be [2,3], etc.

Response: This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

3. Please prepare References section according to the 'Instructions for Authors'

Response: This information was corrected in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

Detailed comments are highlighted in the PDF file. After taking into account my comments, I recommend this work for publication.

Response: All the comments were suggested in the pdf were addressed and incorporated in the revised Ms. as per the suggestions.

Reviewer 3

1. The research design appears to be well done, but the methodology is the most important part of the work, and the author does not provide much detail. Therefore, the methodology of this work should be detailed.

Response: This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

2. The discussion of this work is too weak. The number of results in the table should be mentioned in the discussion part.

Response: This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewed paper presents data about Ashwagandha crop improvement. Paper is well-written and understandable despite the large amount of data. 

I have three major comments:

1) Please complete the missing information about the units in the tables, plant height, root diameter, etc.

2) Improve the Reference order - line 39 - there is [2,17] should be [2,3], etc.

3) Please prepare References section according to the 'Instructions for Authors'

Detailed comments are highlighted in the PDF file.

After taking into account my comments, I recommend this work for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank Dr. Alice Fang, Assistant Editor, Editorial team and Reviewers for their time to review our manuscript " Heterosis study for root yield attributing characters and total alkaloid content over different environments in Withania somnifera L." Manuscript ID: agriculture-2251506 and providing valuable suggestions. We have modified our manuscript as per the recommendations and addressed all the required comments of reviewers. We are confident that the editor/reviewers will find our revised manuscript suitable for publication in your esteemed journal.

The detailed responses to the Editor and Reviewers’ comments are listed below:

Editor: If one of the referees has suggested that your manuscript should undergo extensive English revisions, please address this issue during revision. We propose that you use one of the editing services listed at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english or have your manuscript checked by a

native English-speaking colleague.

Response: Thank you very much, the revised manuscript is addressed this valuable suggestion. The Ms. was checked by native speaker for language and grammar. We had also used Grammarly for language improvement.

Reviewer 1:    This study is of great importance. However, English is not clear, this manuscript has too many tables. Sentences are not easy to follow:

Response: Thank you very much, esteemed reviewer, the revised manuscript is addressed this valuable suggestion. The Ms. was checked by native speaker for language and grammar. We had also used Grammarly for language improvement. Few sentences were reframed for better understanding. Few tables were added in the supplementary files. This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

Additional comments:

1. Line 18. Change “cultivar” to “cultivars”
2. Line 23. Sentence is unclear.
3. Line 18. Sentence is unclear.
4. Line 39. Autogamous and self-pollinated are
5. The necessity and importance of the study is not indicatd
6. Materials and Methods. This section is not clear at all.
7. Table 5. This should go to supplementary data.
8. There are too many tables that should go to supplementary data

Response: All the above-mentioned comments were addressed in was added in the revised Ms. as per the suggestions.

Reviewer 2: Reviewed paper presents data about Ashwagandha crop improvement. Paper is well-written and understandable despite the large amount of data. I have three major comments:

1. Please complete the missing information about the units in the tables, plant height, root diameter, etc.

Response: This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

2. Improve the Reference order - line 39 - there is [2,17] should be [2,3], etc.

Response: This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

3. Please prepare References section according to the 'Instructions for Authors'

Response: This information was corrected in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

Detailed comments are highlighted in the PDF file. After taking into account my comments, I recommend this work for publication.

Response: All the comments were suggested in the pdf were addressed and incorporated in the revised Ms. as per the suggestions.

Reviewer 3

1. The research design appears to be well done, but the methodology is the most important part of the work, and the author does not provide much detail. Therefore, the methodology of this work should be detailed.

Response: This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

2. The discussion of this work is too weak. The number of results in the table should be mentioned in the discussion part.

Response: This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The research design appears to be well done, but the methodology is the most important part of the work, and the author does not provide much detail. Therefore, the methodology of this work should be detailed.

2. The discussion of this work is too weak. The number of results in the table should be mentioned in the discussion part.

Author Response

We thank Dr. Alice Fang, Assistant Editor, Editorial team and Reviewers for their time to review our manuscript " Heterosis study for root yield attributing characters and total alkaloid content over different environments in Withania somnifera L." Manuscript ID: agriculture-2251506 and providing valuable suggestions. We have modified our manuscript as per the recommendations and addressed all the required comments of reviewers. We are confident that the editor/reviewers will find our revised manuscript suitable for publication in your esteemed journal.

The detailed responses to the Editor and Reviewers’ comments are listed below:

Editor: If one of the referees has suggested that your manuscript should undergo extensive English revisions, please address this issue during revision. We propose that you use one of the editing services listed at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english or have your manuscript checked by a

native English-speaking colleague.

Response: Thank you very much, the revised manuscript is addressed this valuable suggestion. The Ms. was checked by native speaker for language and grammar. We had also used Grammarly for language improvement.

Reviewer 1:    This study is of great importance. However, English is not clear, this manuscript has too many tables. Sentences are not easy to follow:

Response: Thank you very much, esteemed reviewer, the revised manuscript is addressed this valuable suggestion. The Ms. was checked by native speaker for language and grammar. We had also used Grammarly for language improvement. Few sentences were reframed for better understanding. Few tables were added in the supplementary files. This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

Additional comments:

1. Line 18. Change “cultivar” to “cultivars”
2. Line 23. Sentence is unclear.
3. Line 18. Sentence is unclear.
4. Line 39. Autogamous and self-pollinated are
5. The necessity and importance of the study is not indicatd
6. Materials and Methods. This section is not clear at all.
7. Table 5. This should go to supplementary data.
8. There are too many tables that should go to supplementary data

Response: All the above-mentioned comments were addressed in was added in the revised Ms. as per the suggestions.

Reviewer 2: Reviewed paper presents data about Ashwagandha crop improvement. Paper is well-written and understandable despite the large amount of data. I have three major comments:

1. Please complete the missing information about the units in the tables, plant height, root diameter, etc.

Response: This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

2. Improve the Reference order - line 39 - there is [2,17] should be [2,3], etc.

Response: This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

3. Please prepare References section according to the 'Instructions for Authors'

Response: This information was corrected in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

Detailed comments are highlighted in the PDF file. After taking into account my comments, I recommend this work for publication.

Response: All the comments were suggested in the pdf were addressed and incorporated in the revised Ms. as per the suggestions.

Reviewer 3

1. The research design appears to be well done, but the methodology is the most important part of the work, and the author does not provide much detail. Therefore, the methodology of this work should be detailed.

Response: This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

2. The discussion of this work is too weak. The number of results in the table should be mentioned in the discussion part.

Response: This information was added in the Ms. as per the suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did significantly  improved the manuscript. However, there are still minore comments:

• Line 40. Autogamous and self-pollinated are synonymous. So, just mention one. 

• I think semicolon is not needed when there are more than one reference

• Ten tables is still a lot for a manuscript. Maybe no more tan 4 o 5 should be within the ms.

Author Response

We thank Dr. Alice Fang, Assistant Editor, Editorial team and Reviewers for their time to review our revised manuscript " Heterosis study for root yield attributing characters and total alkaloid content over different environments in Withania somnifera L." Manuscript ID: agriculture-2251506 and providing valuable suggestions. We have modified our manuscript as per the recommendations and addressed all the required comments of reviewers. We are confident that the editor/reviewers will find our revised manuscript suitable for publication in your esteemed journal.

The detailed responses to the Editor and Reviewers’ comments are listed below:

Editor: If one of the referees has suggested that your manuscript should undergo extensive English revisions, please address this issue during revision. We propose that you use one of the editing services listed at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english or have your manuscript checked by a

native English-speaking colleague.

Response: Thank you very much, the revised manuscript is addressed this valuable suggestion. The Ms. was checked by native speaker for language and grammar. We had also used Grammarly for language improvement.

Reviewer 1:

The authors did significantly improved the manuscript. However, there are still minor comments:

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation for the revised Ms. esteemed reviewer, the revised manuscript is addressed all your valuable suggestion.

Line 40. Autogamous and self-pollinated are synonymous. So, just mention one.  I think semicolon is not needed when there are more than one reference. Ten tables is still a lot for a manuscript. Maybe no more tan 4 o 5 should be within the ms.

Response: All the above-mentioned comments were addressed in the revised Ms. as per the suggestions. We had kept 5 key tables in the main Ms. and remaining tables were transferred to the supplementary datasheet.

Reviewer 3

Thank you for your response. This revised manuscript contains clear and well-written additional information. However, I suggested that the table in the main-text can be reduced. It's too many in this form and hard to read and follow. Or, in the page of table data, the author can adjust the page layout orientation into the landscape, which is more appropriate.

Thank you very much, esteemed reviewer, the revised manuscript is addressed this valuable suggestion. We had kept 5 key tables in the main Ms. and the remaining tables were transferred to the supplementary datasheet. In the final accepted typesetting proof, the tables will be adjected as per your suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author,

Thank you for your response. This revised manuscript contains clear and well-written additional information. 

However, I suggested that the table in the main-text can be reduced. It's too many in this form and hard to read and follow. 

Or, in the page of table data, the author can adjust the page layout orientation into the landscape, which is more appropriate.

Author Response

We thank Dr. Alice Fang, Assistant Editor, Editorial team and Reviewers for their time to review our revised manuscript " Heterosis study for root yield attributing characters and total alkaloid content over different environments in Withania somnifera L." Manuscript ID: agriculture-2251506 and providing valuable suggestions. We have modified our manuscript as per the recommendations and addressed all the required comments of reviewers. We are confident that the editor/reviewers will find our revised manuscript suitable for publication in your esteemed journal.

The detailed responses to the Editor and Reviewers’ comments are listed below:

Editor: If one of the referees has suggested that your manuscript should undergo extensive English revisions, please address this issue during revision. We propose that you use one of the editing services listed at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english or have your manuscript checked by a native English-speaking colleague.

Response: Thank you very much, the revised manuscript is addressed this valuable suggestion. The Ms. was checked by native speaker for language and grammar. We had also used Grammarly for language improvement.

Reviewer 1:

The authors did significantly improved the manuscript. However, there are still minor comments:

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation for the revised Ms. esteemed reviewer, the revised manuscript is addressed all your valuable suggestion.

Line 40. Autogamous and self-pollinated are synonymous. So, just mention one.  I think semicolon is not needed when there are more than one reference. Ten tables is still a lot for a manuscript. Maybe no more tan 4 o 5 should be within the ms.

Response: All the above-mentioned comments were addressed in the revised Ms. as per the suggestions. We had kept 5 key tables in the main Ms. and remaining tables were transferred to the supplementary datasheet.

Reviewer 3

Thank you for your response. This revised manuscript contains clear and well-written additional information. However, I suggested that the table in the main-text can be reduced. It's too many in this form and hard to read and follow. Or, in the page of table data, the author can adjust the page layout orientation into the landscape, which is more appropriate.

Thank you very much, esteemed reviewer, the revised manuscript is addressed this valuable suggestion. We had kept 5 key tables in the main Ms. and the remaining tables were transferred to the supplementary datasheet. In the final accepted typesetting proof, the tables will be adjected as per your suggestions.