Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have written an article entitled “In Vitro Seed and Clonal Propagation of the Mediterranean Bee Friendly Plant Anthyllis hermanniae L.”. The manuscript is quite interesting, well framed, and based on the in vitro seed and clonal propagation was investigated, Furthermore, The efficient micropropagation of A. hermaniae will facilitate its sustainable exploitation as a bee-friendly landscape plant, forage plant for honeybees in Mediterranean areas and medicinal plant. The work reported in this manuscript is interesting and moderately presented. The article has some grammatical and sentence errors, and the language organization needs to be improved. The authors have described the concept to a reasonable extent but the manuscript still needs some Major corrections before publishing in the Sustainability.

I advise the authors to consider the following points when revising their manuscript.

1.     What is the MS media composition and definition of MS, the authors did not mention in the manuscript? Include the details in the revised manuscript.

2.     In all figures, the SD and Median values were not represented in any of the data. Include the details.

3.     In the abstract, the Photo period did not affect the germination, does the authors incubated for the same period as such as room temperature? Like 4-18 months?

4.     In the abstract, All the results can be explained in a more scientific and statistical format. So the abstract needs to be revised.

5.     Too many keywords and some are not appropriate and not organized well. Check and correct it.

6.     Too many self-citations make the study visibility localized to the specific region, is there any strong reason to explain?.

7.     In the introduction authors says this is the first study, Roy, Shyamal K. "." In Vitro 766 (2003): B1.has similar reports?

8.     The study was initiated in 2013 and completed in 2015 which was the reason did not publish at that time, is there any further studies or experiments included in the study?

9.     Figures of viable and non-viable embryos can be included in the manuscript.

10.   “seeds were scarified either using sandpaper suitable for metal surfaces (Νο 100) for 1 min or by dipping in concentrated sulfuric acid”. Is this protocol have any previous reference as authors used Conc. H₂SO₄.

11.   In the manuscript authors did not give information on many chemicals, their origin, and the company from where they were purchased.

 

12.   In Figure 1, In subfigure e, the Last bar showing ab is the same bar, and in subfigure h, the 2 bars do not show any representation. All the data represented is not in a systemic pattern.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors submitted a well-written paper that provides experimental data about in vitro clonal propagation of a promising species, Anthyllis hermanniae. The paper is thoroughly explained and well-documented from a scientific standpoint. Experiments are fully described, and the results are clearly presented. The authors should carefully review the entire manuscript, though, and manually fix any minor errors. For instance, on line 511, the authors' names were not converted into numbers in accordance with the journal's requirements, and on line 525, at source 67, there is a brace in place of a right parenthesis. Finally, I advise accepting this article for publication after minor changes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revisions of the manuscript done by the authors are satisfactory, So, now the manuscript is suitable for publication.