Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is interesting and contributes to knowledge but requires some improvements such as the following: the authors must follow the guide for authors in the citation of references within the text, update the citations, be clear and precise in the statistical techniques used in the analysis of data, use more powerful mean comparison techniques, report results as mean ±standard deviation. These and other more specific observations are attached in a word file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Can calcium rich pigeonpea seed coat forms a potential by-product for food and pharmaceutical industries?” is not having sufficient science for its publication in international journal like “Sustainability”.

It is not clear why the authors have carried out the present study.

The knowledge gap and hypothesis of the study are not clearly presented.

The authors have grown 60 accessions of pigeonpea and analysed protein and nutrients contents in whole grain, cotyledon and seed coat. The details of the cultivation practices and the initial soil/culture media nutrient status are not mentioned.

The details of experimental design and the effect of year on nutritional parameters are not presented.

There is no synchrony among the title, abstract, introduction and conclusion part of the manuscript.

Because of these reasons I find the manuscript unsuitable for consideration for publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Still some of my earlier comments pertaining to details  of soil properties on which genotypes were grown  have not been addressed.

Author Response

Comments: Still some of my earlier comments pertaining to details  of soil properties on which genotypes were grown  have not been addressed.

Response: The soil properties are now included in the revised version (Page 3, lines 116 to 119). The field trial was conducted in Alfisols for both the cropping years. The soil belongs to fine loamy mixed isohyperthermic family of Udic Rhodustalf.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors are suggested to provide initial status of experimental soil characteristics namely soil acidity, electrical conductivity, soil organic carbon content, available N, P, K and exchangeable Ca and Mg and available micronutrients such as Zn, Cu, Fe and Mn, in the material method section of the manuscript. This information is vital for better understanding of the nutrient accumulation in seeds of the pigeonpea genotypes.

Author Response

Comments: The authors are suggested to provide initial status of experimental soil characteristics namely soil acidity, electrical conductivity, soil organic carbon content, available N, P, K and exchangeable Ca and Mg and available micronutrients such as Zn, Cu, Fe and Mn, in the material method section of the manuscript. This information is vital for better understanding of the nutrient accumulation in seeds of the pigeonpea genotypes

Response: As per the reviewer’s suggestion the soil nutrient status of the experimental plots was included in the Materials and Methods section (Page 3, lines 114-124).