Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

improve with the discussion of the previous study may can be added with the matrix of the developed/types/variation of the study in this manuscript

 

1. To improve this manuscript the author may can compare some study of soil pollution detection using microorganisms and how the development of this study

2. in the discussion, how the best technical for optimum detection of soil pollution using the bacteria and future prospect for this study ?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The text should be crossread and corrected by a native speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Generally, there is a major need for this manuscript to undergo English language editing as it is difficult to accurately follow in it's current state. There appears to be some merit to the manuscript, however, there are too many language, grammar, and technical errors at the moment. Many statements also require many more references.

Line 30 - What are the industries? 'various' is not specific enough.

Line 31 - Who's 'we'?

Lines 35 to 45 don't make sense.

Line 48 - Is luminescence added to the bacteria chemically or do the bacterial species have luminescence already? The answer to this will change if you're using the correct luminescence terminology.

Line 64 - Never start a sentence with 'and'.

Lines 62 to 72 - Needs a reference.

Line 73 - These are methods and need their own section. You're describing a systematic review that requires a methods section.

Where has the information come from in Table 1?

Are figures 1 and 2 your own?

Line 127 - Not a professionally acceptable method to start a paragraph.

Line 175 - Needs a reference

Line 216 - Species names should be in italics.

Line 223 to 240 - Much more detail about the mechanisms is required here. This paragraph is too general.

Line 242 - Incorrect referencing format.

Line 325 - 'to sum up' is not an appropriate term.

Further review is hindered by the quality of English language, lack of required references, and the need for critical evaluation throughout. The current standard of review is not appropriate for publication.

The current standard of English language is poor and requires immediate attention. This, unfortunately hinders the overall interpretation of the manuscript and reduces your ability to write critically.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The quality of the article has sharply improved . There are only two things to be mentioned:

1. There are still some minor English flaws throughout the text. Language editing would be advisable. (e.g. l. 85 We searched ...etc).

2. Please at least mention that Vibrio fischeri has been renamed to Aliivibrio fischeri.

Minor English editing is still required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

There are some good improvements to the manuscript, however, there are still major areas that need to be addressed.

Line 31 - 'we' not appropriate language. When you respond to reviewers, we expect you to change the manuscript rather than explaining the points to us.

Lines 34 to 48 still don't make sense. If everyone that reads your manuscript can't understand this, are you going to send them all the same explanation you sent me? Make the changes to the manuscript. Address point 3 of the previous review again.

Line 52 - don't use 'etc', write them out or summarise.

Line 85 - Wrong tense used.

Insufficiently addressed point 8 from previous review.

Insufficiently addressed point 9 from previous review. References need to be in the manuscript with the table or this is plagiarism.

Figure legends of figure 1 and 2 need more detail.

 

 

Even with the journal's language editing, it is not correct to English standard. Some areas need to be addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

There does not appear to be any correction to the figures. Figure 2 especially needs serious attention. There is too much going on in the figure to have  single line explaining it. Give the detail, write a brief overview of the process. What does everything stand for? This is also required for figure 3.

There are some areas where English language needs to be addressed now. I suggest having the article proof read.

Since revisions, the quality of English language has reduced again.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf