In Vitro Propagation Journey of Ornamental Gladiolus (Gladiolus Species): A Systematic Review Analysis Based on More Than 50 Years Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review comprehensively covers research conducted over the past 50 years on various in vitro propagation methods for gladiolus (Gladiolus spp.), including direct and indirect organogenesis, and somatic embryogenesis. This research is comprehensive and reasonable, showcasing a wealth of content and a wide-ranging study. However, some issues need attention.

1.     Although the review is comprehensive, there are instances of meaningless or redundant content. For example, lines 85-86 "They discovered this information by searching research reports on Google, Google Scholar, and other databases" which does not add specific value. It's recommended that such content be either edited out or rewritten to enhance conciseness and readability.

2.     The paper seems to list existing literature extensively, but Some paragraphs lack necessary analysis. For instance, Lines 67-69 “Various research- ers have demonstrated direct organogenesis utilising a variety of explants, including corms [38, 58] or inflorescence explants [26], axillary buds [27] basal leaf tissues [59], me- ristem [28], explants from inflorescence stalk [9] and various explants such as shoot tips or cormel sprouts [8, 9, 51], cormel and cormel segments”. The use of more summarizing language is suggested, and where appropriate, detailed examples from the articles could be provided to enhance the informational value and readability.

 

3.     Some citations in the article seem inappropriately used and necessitate a thorough review and adjustment of the entire paper. Such as Line501-502 “Moreover, [121] used different plant growth reg- ulators and were able to obtain a somatic embryo from Peters Pears”; Line 669-670 “Roy, [57] found that a greater number of microcorms were present in liquid medium as opposed to agar gelled medium. Similarily, [114] also obtained corm regeneration in subsequent liquid shake cultures.”

Author Response

The corrections suggested by the reviwer were incorporated in the revised file. The changes are shown in yellow colour. However deleted portion is shown in red colour.

1. Although the review is comprehensive, there are instances of meaningless or redundant content. For example, lines 85-86 "They discovered this information by searching research reports on Google, Google Scholar, and other databases" which does not add specific value. It's recommended that such content be either edited out or rewritten to enhance conciseness and readability.  Answer Changes has been incorporated as per suggestions.
2. The paper seems to list existing literature extensively, but some paragraphs lack necessary analysis. For instance, Lines 67-69 “Various research- ers have demonstrated direct organogenesis utilizing a variety of explants, including corms [38, 58] or inflorescence explants [26], axillary buds [27] basal leaf tissues [59], me- ristem [28], explants from inflorescence stalk [9] and various explants such as shoot tips or cormel sprouts [8, 9, 51], cormel and cormel segments”. The use of more summarizing language is suggested, and where appropriate, detailed examples from the articles could be provided to enhance the informational value and readability.

Answer Changes has been incorporated as per suggestions.

3. Some citations in the article seem inappropriately used and necessitate a thorough review and adjustment of the entire paper. Such as Line 501-502 “Moreover, [121] used different plant growth reg- ulators and were able to obtain a somatic embryo from Peters Pears”; Line 669-670 “Roy, [57] found that a greater number of microcorms were present in liquid medium as opposed to agar gelled medium. Similarily, [114] also obtained corm regeneration in subsequent liquid shake cultures.”
4. Answer Changes has been incorporated as per suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I reviewed the manuscript and below are my comments:

The title and keywords are correct

The Abstract is good, but not coherent and has 384 words. MDPI guidelines recommend 250 words - authors are asked to limit their manuscript to a maximum of 250 words.

I am asking the authors to combine points 2 and 3 and work them out.

I ask the authors to write Latin names in italics.

If the blue text sections indicate that the link will be clickable, then the authors should do so, because it is not formally appropriate.

Tables and figures in the text do not need to be clickable.

Titles and sub-titles are formally incorrect. These also need to be improved.

In the References, the technical literature references are formally inappropriate and I ask the authors to include more technical literature that was created in the past 5 years.

Author Response

I reviewed the manuscript and below are my comments:

The title and keywords are correct

The Abstract is good, but not coherent and has 384 words. MDPI guidelines recommend 250 words - authors are asked to limit their manuscript to a maximum of 250 words.

Answer: Changed as per suggestions

I am asking the authors to combine points 2 and 3 and work them out.

Answer: The same was asked by the reviewer 1 to separate the 2 and 3.

I ask the authors to write Latin names in italics.

Answer: Changed as per suggestions

If the blue text sections indicate that the link will be clickable, then the authors should do so, because it is not formally appropriate.

Answer: Changed as per suggestions

 

Tables and figures in the text do not need to be clickable.

Answer: Changed as per suggestions

 

Titles and sub-titles are formally incorrect. These also need to be improved.

As per other reviewer the title is okay, so changes were incorporated.

In the References, the technical literature references are formally inappropriate and I ask the authors to include more technical literature that was created 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf