Improvement of Selected Morphological, Physiological, and Biochemical Parameters of Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) Grown under Different Salinity Levels Using Potassium Silicate and Aloe saponaria Extract
, Hayam A. A. Mahdy 3, Nasr M. Abdou 4, Amira M. El-Tahan 5, Mohamed T. El-Saadony 6, Khaled A. El-Tarabily 7,* and Fathy M. A. El-Saadony 8,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to make the corrections that I mentioned in the MS.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 1 comments
Page 1
long title, I would recommend to modify this
Response: it was adjusted accordingly
remove from the Abstract and move it into Methods
Response: Done accordingly
Please mention the full name then Abbreviation
Response: Done accordingly
Page 4
I would suggest to move this table in the results section.
Response: Done accordingly
Page 5
transfer it into results section
Response: Done accordingly
Page 8, 14, 15
Delete
Response: Done accordingly
Page 9
Please mention the type of test that you are using
Response: Done accordingly
already mentioned in the method section, so remove please.
Response: Done accordingly
Page 10
Please mention the type of test
Response: Done accordingly
Delete
Response: Done accordingly
Page 13
once is enough
Response: Done accordingly
once mention is enough in the end of paragraph
Response: Done accordingly
Delete
Response: Done accordingly
Page 14, 15
Delete
Response: Done accordingly
Page 16
delete from this section and move it into introduction
Response: Done accordingly
Page 17
Negative
Response: Done accordingly
Page 18
need more clarification
Response: Done accordingly
page 19
Please add some interested results in the end of this section.
Response: Done accordingly
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The experiment is interesting and its results may have practical applications.
In the introduction, I recommend adding the objectives of the experiment.
The presentation of the results in tables is not clear. Also their description in the text. I recommend a change. The discussion is very extensive, but the actual results are relatively little discussed.
How did the authors arrive at the recommended concentrations given in the conclusion?
I recommend a careful review of the text. See my comments on attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 2 comments
Thanks for the reviewer, the comments significantly enhanced the manuscript. We have replied all comments accordingly
Page 1
What does cml-1 mean? I recommend adjusting the unit.
Response: it means cm/L
dS m-1, Edit everywhere in the text. I recommend checking the units according to the editorial requirements
Response: Done accordingly
Fv/Fm
Response: Done accordingly
Page 2
is not correct as follows .... of 3 cml-1 of KSi plus 1% of Ae with S1?
Response: it was corrected accordingly
I recommend starting the text as a new paragraph.
Response: Done accordingly
Page 4
I recommend starting the text as a new paragraph.
Response: Done accordingly
I think we need to add to the objectives of the experiment
Response: Done accordingly
correct 34.8 °C
Response: Done accordingly
Page 5
correctly L
Response: Done accordingly
Is there a reference to Table 2 in the text?
Response: Done accordingly
Page 9
What do S-I and S-II mean?
Response: it was observed accordingly
Page 18
What is the relevance of this text to the experiment?
Response: it was detailed in the text accordingly
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor and Authors,
The manuscript received for review raises an interesting topic. However, the presentation of the collected data is so incoherent and chaotic that it is not suitable for publication in this form. The article is not prepared in accordance with the requirements of the journal. The abstract itself contains over 200 words that are required ... The introduction is a uniform text without paragraphs and a marked work goal! The authors present the methodology one by one, which also does not comply with the requirements ... This part is also prepared very briefly, in general ... Results - you don't really know what they are about. A large amount of data, from which little can be read ... The discussion also requires rewriting. References are not tailored to the journal. I do not recomennded this paper to publication in Plant journal.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 3 comments
Thanks for the reviewer, the comments significantly enhanced the manuscript. We have replied all comments accordingly
Page 1
Improvement of selected morphological, physiological and biochemical parameters of Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) Grown under Salinity Modulates Using Potassium Silicate and Aloe Saponaria Extract
Response: Done accordingly
Abstract too long, inconsistent with the manuscript template
Response: it was briefed
Page 2
they are in the title so delete and add anothers
Response: Done accordingly
in my opinion, this part should be shortened. I would remove the sentences about diseases - please mention it in one short sentence
Response: Done accordingly
add latine name here
Response: Done accordingly
from new paragraph PLEASE
Response: Done accordingly
new paragraph
Response: Done accordingly
Page 3
In my opinion it is too long
Response: it was briefed and all structural and type mistakes were corrected accordingly
full latine name (Aloë L.) aloe in italic
Response: Done accordingly
Page 4
Aloe maculata All. (A. saponaria)
Response: Done accordingly
to rewritten...
Response: Done accordingly
I do not see aims of this paper
Response: the aim was added accordingly
here should be presented results please check manuscript template
Response: Done accordingly
Page 5
study, experiment, research ttrial we can use for clinical trials
Response: the verbs were checked and corrected
Page 6
Month we write in big letters!
Response: Done accordingly
Chlorophyll a fluorescence, chlorophyll and performance index measurements
Response: Done accordingly
please add more information about these methods
Response: Done accordingly
only one parameter, why? I suggest add more parameters!
Response: Done accordingly
How did you do these measurements? Please describe them.
Response: it was detailed accordingly
add more information about these methodology
Response: it was detailed accordingly
Page 7
None of the tables are prepared correctly. The presentation of the results is so chaotic that it is difficult to find out anything. Each of the tables needs to be refined. It is not acceptable in this form.
Response: Thanks for this valuable comment, all tables were reformulated and the results were detailed accordingly
Page 19
References are not prepared according to manuscript template
Response: Done accordingly
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have carefully processed all comments. The quality of the manuscript has increased significantly. I have no further comments.
Author Response
Thanks to the reviewer for the positive comments which enhanced the manuscript
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor and Authors,
The authors have partially complied with my comments. The article still needs to be refined. I do not consent to the publication in this form.
Author Response
Reviewer 3 comments
The authors have partially complied with my comments. The article still needs to be refined. I do not consent to the publication in this form.
Thanks to the reviewer, the comments significantly enhanced the manuscript. We have revised again the comments
Page 1
Improvement of selected morphological, physiological and biochemical parameters of Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) Grown under Salinity Modulates Using Potassium Silicate and Aloe Saponaria Extract
Response: Done accordingly
Abstract too long, inconsistent with the manuscript template
Response: it was briefed
Page 2
They are in the title so delete and add another’s
Response: Done accordingly
in my opinion, this part should be shortened. I would remove the sentences about diseases - please mention it in one short sentence
Response: Done accordingly
add latine name here
Response: Done accordingly
from new paragraph PLEASE
Response: Done accordingly
new paragraph
Response: Done accordingly
Page 3
In my opinion it is too long
Response: it was briefed and all structural and type mistakes were corrected accordingly
full latine name (Aloë L.) aloe in italic
Response: Done accordingly
Page 4
Regarding The table of Soil analysis
Response: Thanks for this comment, usually this table occurred in materials and methods
Aloe maculata All. (A. saponaria)
Response: Done accordingly
to rewritten...
Response: Done accordingly
I do not see aims of this paper
Response: the aim was added accordingly
here should be presented results please check manuscript template
Response: Done accordingly
Page 5
study, experiment, research ttrial we can use for clinical trials
Response: the verbs were checked and corrected
Page 6
Month we write in big letters!
Response: Done accordingly
Chlorophyll a fluorescence, chlorophyll and performance index measurements
Response: Done accordingly
please add more information about these methods
Response: Done accordingly
only one parameter, why? I suggest add more parameters!
Response: Done accordingly
How did you do these measurements? Please describe them.
Response: it was detailed accordingly
add more information about these methodology
Response: it was detailed accordingly
Page 7
None of the tables are prepared correctly. The presentation of the results is so chaotic that it is difficult to find out anything. Each of the tables needs to be refined. It is not acceptable in this form.
Response: Thanks for this valuable comment, all tables were reformulated and the results were detailed accordingly
Page 19
References are not prepared according to manuscript template
Response: Done accordingly
