Next Article in Journal
Elevated CO2 Can Improve the Tolerance of Avena sativa to Cope with Zirconium Pollution by Enhancing ROS Homeostasis
Next Article in Special Issue
New Understanding of Meta-Topolin Riboside Metabolism in Micropropagated Woody Plants
Previous Article in Journal
Positive Effects of Organic Amendments on Soil Microbes and Their Functionality in Agro-Ecosystems
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Plant Regeneration via Organogenesis in Jerusalem Artichokes and Comparative Analysis of Endogenous Hormones and Antioxidant Enzymes in Typical and Atypical Shoots

Plants 2023, 12(22), 3789; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12223789
by Yiming Zhang 1,†, Jiahui Zhang 1,†, Junliang Yin 2, Yiqing Liu 1,* and Xiaodong Cai 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Plants 2023, 12(22), 3789; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12223789
Submission received: 10 September 2023 / Revised: 17 October 2023 / Accepted: 27 October 2023 / Published: 7 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Propagation)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see PDF

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The detailed comments and questions are given in the file enclosed. 

Additionally: 

1.     12 explants per replication is very little. It might be understandable for the initiation stage if it’s difficult to obtain primary explants (however it does not seem difficult in the case of Jerusalem artichoke), however for further stages the Authors could have prepared more plant material.

2.     Figures 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are of a very poor quality – hardly readable.

3.     The supplementary Figure should be included in the main manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English mostly fine, a few sentences are too long and complicated, a few minor errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

dear author

I have read the new version very carefully. The new version is much improved compared to the first one. However, I still had comments which I commented on the new version of the MS. Please relate to the new comments in the attached file. 

After fully relating to the new comments the MS can be published

Please when you write the cover letter, mark the line number for each comment and not by serial number

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

      Thank you very much for your careful review of our manuscript. The attachment is our reponses to your comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop