The Modified Hydroponic Kit Based on Self-Fertigation System Designed for Remote Areas

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the interesting and relevant research. Please find some comments for the improvement of the article below.

1. In the abstract, the authors are recommended to indicate the period of the research. What research methods were used?

2. At the end of the introduction, I suggest presenting the structure of the article.

3. There is a lack of deeper theoretical substantiation.

4.     The authors should present the results of previous similar studies in more detail.

 

5.     I suggest you to improve the clarity of the article’s empirical research by some schemes and figures that will help readers to better follow your research.

Author Response

REVISION STATEMENT

• We appreciate your letter on our manuscript (ID: horticulturae-1952840), entitled ‘The Modified Hydroponic Kit Based on Self-Fertigation System Designed for Remote Areas’. Thank you for the constructive comments of the experienced editors and reviewers. In this revised manuscript, we have revised based on the reviewer's suggestion. For improving the transferability and readability, the original manuscript has been improved. The modifications have been highlighted yellow in the text.

 

REVIEWER #1:

I would like to thank the authors for the interesting and relevant research. Please find some comments for the improvement of the article below.

Response

• The authors would like to give special thanks to anonymous reviewer #1 for its insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which significantly improved the manuscript.

 

1. In the abstract, the authors are recommended to indicate the period of the research. What research methods were used?

Response

• The research period and method have been added to the manuscript (lines 13 – 16).

 

2. At the end of the introduction, I suggest presenting the structure of the article.

Response

• The article structure has been explained in the manuscript (lines 89-93).

 

3. There is a lack of deeper theoretical substantiation.

Response

• The theoretical substantiation has been detailed in the manuscript. Various literature studies have provided support to provide a comprehensive discussion (lines 307-325 and lines 343-348).

 

4. The authors should present the results of previous similar studies in more detail.

Response

• The results of previous similar studies have been added to the manuscript (lines 307-325 and 343-348).

 

5. I suggest you to improve the clarity of the article’s empirical research by some schemes and figures that will help readers to better follow your research.

Response

• Figure 6 (cultivation of red and green spinach using a hydroponic kit based on a self-fertigation system) has been included in the manuscript to improve the reader's understanding.
• Figure 6. Cultivation of red and green spinach using a hydroponic kit based on a self-fertigation system

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Generally, the information flow is ok. However, it is rather descriptive, not like a real research paper.

I noticed the contents from Lines 88-102 are not relevant and should be deleted.

I also feel that Results and Discussion should b combined because authors have cited a lot of references to support their results. Also, there are paragraphs that are pure discussion (such as the last paragraph in the Results section), not presenting results. 

Also, some of the contents are too rudimentary, which sounds like from a text book instead of from the research results. example - Lines 315 to 322.

 

Author Response

REVISION STATEMENT

• We appreciate your letter on our manuscript (ID: horticulturae-1952840), entitled ‘The Modified Hydroponic Kit Based on Self-Fertigation System Designed for Remote Areas’. Thank you for the constructive comments of the experienced editors and reviewers. In this revised manuscript, we have revised based on the reviewer's suggestion. For improving the transferability and readability, the original manuscript has been improved. The modifications have been highlighted yellow in the text.

 

REVIEWER #2:

Generally, the information flow is ok. However, it is rather descriptive, not like a real research paper.

Response

• The authors would like to give special thanks to anonymous reviewer #2 for its insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which significantly improved the manuscript.

 

1. I noticed the contents from Lines 88-102 are not relevant and should be deleted.

Response

• Lines 88-102 have been deleted.

 

2. I also feel that Results and Discussion should be combined because authors have cited a lot of references to support their results. Also, there are paragraphs that are pure discussion (such as the last paragraph in the Results section), not presenting results.

Response

• Results and discussion have been combined. Various literature studies have provided support to provide a comprehensive discussion (lines 307-325 and lines 343-348).

 

3. Also, some of the contents are too rudimentary, which sounds like from a text book instead of from the research results. example - Lines 315 to 322.

Response

• This issue has been An additional discussion has been provided (lines 343-348).

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf