Composting of Municipal Solid Waste Using Earthworms and Ligno-Cellulolytic Microbial Consortia for Reclamation of the Degraded Sodic Soils and Harnessing Their Productivity Potential

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The MS is generally well–written and structured. Experimental and analytical methods are adequate. The scientific rigor is high. Results are of scientific and practical interest, they are well discussed. However, I have some concerns about the abstract length. I strongly suggest shortening the abstract. Also underscore the novelty of your work compared to previous researchers. Please expand the term “DOC” first. It will be hard for the readers to follow.

 

 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The Authors chose a very current topic for processing. The article meets the scientific requirements. From a professional point of view, the work well summarizes knowledge about the processed topic. The method of processing is appropriate, however, I have proposed some additions.

The description of the research plan and methods is appropriate, but supplementation is required:

-The authors name 3 species. By what method, how were the strains identified and determined by species? Are these species found in collection of microorganism? Do they have an identifier?

- The method used by Nakasaki et al. 1992 is quite old for determining the total cell count. In further studies, I suggest counting another number of non-living microorganisms.

- Before setting up the experiment, was the initial cell count (CFU g-1)  of MSW and of agricultural wastes determined?

- Figure 5 is difficult to interpret. The vertical axis shows Mg/ha, The vertical axis shows Mg/ha, but the columns do not have LSD0.05  at the top. In the explanation, the authors mention a percentage value, which, in turn, it is not indicated in the figure.

- The title of cited reference (21)  is incorrectly listed in the bibliography.

- The result are clearly presented and the conclusions are supportd by the results.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract:

1.       First sentence “Management of municipal solid waste (MSW) is a serious global environmental, socialeconomic Problem” Its right this method/research in the manuscript was to social-economi solutions? But no any find method and  conclusion about that.

2.       No any novelty in the manuscript, so need to prove it

Materials and Methods

1.       Rather confuse to read this part, need to improve and clear to eplain about material and methods

2.       There is no control to find the clear effect of industrial waste in this study

Result:

1.      There no significant change the all data collected from the study

2.      Cannot to find which compost have optimum result that can be applied in the crop farm

Need to improive with newest references, cause many references was too old 

Need to atate the “Novelty” of this study

Author Response

Response of author on the suggestions/comments

Suggestions/Comments	Authors response
1. Are the figures in your paper cited or adapted from other articles the same with the figures in those works? Have you got the permissions from the copyright owners? If you have, please send us the permissions as soon as possible. We can only publish your paper when receiving the permission.	1. The figures and data presented in the manuscript is outcome of the work conducted by the authors. The figures have not been adapted from the earlier published works. There is no permission required for the work published by authors in the form of bulletin of the project report as per mandate of the institute as the copyright lies with the authors.
2. Please cite all the references in sequential numerical order instead of author plus year. e.g., [1], [2,3], [4–6]. . Please also note that all the references should be cited in numerical order from [1] to [last].	2. The references have been cited sequentially as suggested, removing the authors and years.
3. After comparing in the database, we found some contents in your manuscript are the same with those in the previous works. Please find the detected report attached. To keep the originality for your manuscript, we suggest you rewrite the repeated sentences. Please note self-reuse of the sentences is not allowed for a scientific article either. If possible, please detect it in the database after rewriting.	3. The manuscript has been revised, rewritten and paraphrase the duplicate sentences to reduce the similarity index.
(1) Please revise or paraphrase Section 3.2.4 Changes in Nutrient Contents.	Modified as suggested
(2) Please revise or paraphrase other duplicated sentences in your paper.	Modified as suggested

 

(Yash P. Singh)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

1. Can be clearly novelty approve?

2. Need to improve with newer references

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx