Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: It is recommended to remove the common name and leave only the scientific name.
Abstract: It is recommended to use "Salvia ssp." After introducing the topic, clarify the research objective. Present the information in "Materials and Methods" in an organized and sequential manner. Then, present the main results. Conclude with the main conclusion of the research.

Keywords: It is recommended that the keywords be different from the words in the title. Adjust the number of keywords according to the journal's guidelines.

Introduction: It is recommended to place Figure 1 in the materials and methods section. It is recommended to include the compounds these plants contain that are related to antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer properties.
Sentences relating to how the work was conducted should be added to the materials and methods section and removed from the introduction. Sentences relating to the results should be removed from the introduction and added to the results section. It is recommended to structure the introduction using an "inverted pyramid" structure, starting with the most comprehensive information and gradually specifying it until concluding with the objective of the work. Find citations to include in the introduction that support the objective of the work.

Materials and methods: It is recommended to add more details about the statistical design adopted and the statistical analyses performed. Cite the software used to perform the analyses.
Results: It is recommended to present the main differences obtained with comparisons expressed as percentages.
Discussion: It is recommended to add citations that justify or support the results obtained. This section could be better structured.
Conclusion: Use conclusive language so that it is not a reproduction of the results section. Write objectively.

It is recommended that the English be proofread by a fluent person with experience in scientific writing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended that the English be proofread by a fluent person with experience in scientific writing.

Author Response

Please find attached our reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached review report. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find attached our reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Investigating the Rooting of Stem Cuttings of Five Mediterranean Sage Species (Salvia ssp.), as a Means for Their Wider Exploitation in Sustainable Horticulture" is interesting.

The main aspect addressed in this research paper is the effect of rooting stem cuttings of sage species for vegetative propagation. The origin of the cuttings, the season of collection, and IBA concentrations were explored.
I consider the topic to be original and relevant due to the importance of maintaining quality standards through vegetative propagation.

This work expands on existing information on the vegetative propagation of these species.

The conclusions obtained are consistent with the evidence presented. The argumentation adequately addresses the objective of the research paper.

Some minor points for the authors' attention:

1. Improve the resolution of the images in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

2. For Figure 4, Figure 6, Figure 8, Figure 10, Figure 12, and Figure 14, it is recommended that the mean separation letters be placed above the bar, not submerged in it. In some dark bars, it is not possible to distinguish the corresponding mean separation letter.

Author Response

Please find attached our reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research is relevant to the sustainability of horticulture, particularly in the Mediterranean region. However, the manuscript is lengthy, which makes reading tiring. For this reason, I have highlighted several revision suggestions that, if addressed, could make the text more concise and suitable for publication in this journal.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find atteched our reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Regarding the text, there has been a significant improvement.
However, the resolution of the graphs needs to be improved. It is also recommended that the grid lines be removed and only the axis lines be kept, as the average test letter is often below the grid line.

Author Response

Thank you again for the time and effort you dedicated to the review process.

Below, we provide our response to your last comment.

Comment 1:  Regarding the text, there has been a significant improvement.
However, the resolution of the graphs needs to be improved. It is also recommended that the grid lines be removed and only the axis lines be kept, as the average test letter is often below the grid line.;

Response 1: The resolution of all graphs was improved. Regarding the horizontal grids, they were kept, because they help to understand the value of the percentages, however, a lighter grey color was used.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you so much for your efforts. There is one thing: try to reduce the percentage of similarity.

Author Response

Thank you again for the time and effort you dedicated to the review process.  
Below, we provide our response to your last comment. 
Comment 1:  Thank you so much for your efforts. There is one thing: try to reduce the 
percentage of similarity;  
Response 1: Regarding the percentage of similarity, it's an extended text as it includes 
experimental data for five species and the same terminology was used to describe 
statistical analysis of data or rooting response of the five species, as well as in the 
captions of figures and tables, possibly increasing similarity.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the previously requested suggestions have been adequately addressed, and I have no further comments to add.

Author Response

Thank you again for revising our manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is recommended that the text be revised to eliminate excessively long and redundant sentences, while maintaining objectivity. It is recommended to replace colloquial expressions, such as "worth to be exploited" (line 40), with more formal forms, such as "are promising candidates for exploitation." It is also recommended to prioritize the active voice over the passive voice, which will make the writing clearer and more direct. For example: "Cuttings were collected from wild plants" → "We collected cuttings from wild plants."

It is recommended to review the cohesion between paragraphs in the introduction: there is excessive botanical detail on the species (lines 43–71), which could be summarized by transferring some of the descriptions to supplementary materials. This would make the introduction more fluid and focused on the scientific gap and the study's objectives.

It is recommended to standardize technical terminology: there is an alternation between cutting origin, mother plant type, and cutting collection area, which should be standardized throughout the text. It is also recommended to standardize units and symbols (e.g., always with a space between the number and the unit: 10 cm, 500 mg L⁻¹).

It is recommended to standardize the spelling of scientific names, ensuring the use of italics for all genera and species (e.g., Salvia fruticosa, S. officinalis). It is also recommended that statistical indices and significance values be presented consistently (p ≤ 0.05 instead of mixing p≤0.05 / p < 0.05).

Introduction: It is recommended that the introduction, currently extensive and descriptive, be reorganized into three sections: (i) ornamental and medicinal importance of Salvia species, (ii) limitations of sexual propagation and relevance of vegetative propagation, (iii) scientific gap and objective of the study. This will provide greater impact and focus.

Results: In the Results, it is recommended to summarize excessively numerical sections (e.g., Tables 1–6 and Figures 4–12) into trending sentences, highlighting key comparisons, such as: "Rooting was highest in autumn across species, particularly in S. tomentosa, while S. officinalis consistently showed the lowest rooting percentages." Figures and Tables: It is recommended to increase the resolution of some figures (e.g., Figures 4–13), ensuring legibility of the axes. Captions should be more descriptive: instead of "Rooting percentage of S. officinalis cuttings," use "Rooting percentage of S. officinalis cuttings from greenhouse and wild mother plants, collected across four seasons and treated with different IBA concentrations." It is recommended to standardize the use of Figure (instead of alternating with Fig.) according to the journal's standard. It is recommended to improve the graphic quality of some figures, ensuring legibility of the axes and clarity of the captions.

Discussion: In the Discussion, we recommend expanding the comparison with international literature. Currently, there is a strong focus on regional references; it is recommended to integrate propagation studies of woody or medicinal species in other Mediterranean or semiarid contexts, reinforcing their global relevance.

Conclusion: We recommend making the conclusion more concise and impactful, highlighting that S. tomentosa presented the best rooting results, while S. officinalis was the most recalcitrant species; that rooting depended heavily on the origin of the cuttings, the season, and the application of IBA, with greater efficiency in the fall; and that the developed vegetative propagation protocols are applicable in commercial nurseries and can support the sustainable exploitation of Mediterranean Salvia species for horticulture, landscaping, and the pharmaceutical industry.

References: We recommend updating the bibliography with recent studies (from the last 5 years) on vegetative propagation and auxin application in aromatic/medicinal plants. It is recommended to standardize the citation style, ensuring uniformity in the use of et al. (in italics and with a period). Whenever possible, include DOI.

Author Response

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER'S 1 COMMENTS – 3^rd round

Thank you again for the time and effort you dedicated to the review process. We also thank you for your recommendations aimed at improving our manuscript. A point-by-point response is provided.

Comment 1:  It is recommended that the text be revised to eliminate excessively long and redundant sentences, while maintaining objectivity. It is recommended to replace colloquial expressions, such as "worth to be exploited" (line 40), with more formal forms, such as "are promising candidates for exploitation." It is also recommended to prioritize the active voice over the passive voice, which will make the writing clearer and more direct. For example: "Cuttings were collected from wild plants" → "We collected cuttings from wild plants.";

Response 1: Excessively long sentences were eliminated (please see lines 122, 152-157, 167-171, 679).

The more formal expression ""are promising candidates for exploitation" was used in line 48-49.

We generally prefer to write in a more impersonal way in our manuscripts. So we continued to prioritize the passive voice over the active voice.

Comment 2:  It is recommended to review the cohesion between paragraphs in the introduction: there is excessive botanical detail on the species (lines 43–71), which could be summarized by transferring some of the descriptions to supplementary materials. This would make the introduction more fluid and focused on the scientific gap and the study's objectives;

Response 2: We consider it important to present information about the ornamental and other uses of the five Salvia spp. to support the importance of their sustainable exploitation and therefore the significance of our study. So, we didn't transfer this part to supplementary materials. Please notice that in your previous reviews you did not ask for a reduction of this information, on the contrary you recommended “Introduction: …………... It is recommended to include the compounds these plants contain that are related to antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer properties.”, which we did briefly because we did not want to further expand the introduction.

However, we followed your recommendation in comment 5, dividing  introduction in three sessions.

Comment 3: It is recommended to standardize technical terminology: there is an alternation between cutting origin, mother plant type, and cutting collection area, which should be standardized throughout the text. It is also recommended to standardize units and symbols (e.g., always with a space between the number and the unit: 10 cm, 500 mg L⁻¹);

Response 3: Technical information, units and symbols were standardized throughout the text.

Comment 4: It is recommended to standardize the spelling of scientific names, ensuring the use of italics for all genera and species (e.g., Salvia fruticosa, S. officinalis). It is also recommended that statistical indices and significance values be presented consistently (p ≤ 0.05 instead of mixing p≤0.05 / p < 0.05);

Response 4: We checked again to ensure that spelling of scientific names was in italics for all genera and species. We found no errors. In subtitles, we don't write the scientific names in italics, in order to be distinguished from the rest sentence that it is in italics.

We presented statistical indices and significance values consistently (please check line 305 and all tables and figures).

Comment 5:  Introduction: It is recommended that the introduction, currently extensive and descriptive, be reorganized into three sections: (i) ornamental and medicinal importance of Salvia species, (ii) limitations of sexual propagation and relevance of vegetative propagation, (iii) scientific gap and objective of the study. This will provide greater impact and focus;

Response 5: Although it is not common in scientific articles for the introduction to have sections, we followed your recommendation and introduction was divided in the three recommended sections (Please see sections 1.1., 1.2. and 1.3.).

Comment 6:   Results: In the Results, it is recommended to summarize excessively numerical sections (e.g., Tables 1–6 and Figures 4–12) into trending sentences, highlighting key comparisons, such as: "Rooting was highest in autumn across species, particularly in S. tomentosa, while S. officinalis consistently showed the lowest rooting percentages." Figures and Tables: It is recommended to increase the resolution of some figures (e.g., Figures 4–13), ensuring legibility of the axes. Captions should be more descriptive: instead of "Rooting percentage of S. officinalis cuttings," use "Rooting percentage of S. officinalis cuttings from greenhouse and wild mother plants, collected across four seasons and treated with different IBA concentrations." It is recommended to standardize the use of Figure (instead of alternating with Fig.) according to the journal's standard. It is recommended to improve the graphic quality of some figures, ensuring legibility of the axes and clarity of the captions;

Response 6: In the beginning of results, key comparisons have been done based on Table 1. More summarizing results were added in section 3.6. (please see lines 601-618).

Captions include all the recommended information and we preferred not to change them.

The word Fig. was replaced by the word Figure throughout the text.

Resolution and clarity of Figures was improved.

Comment 7:  Discussion: In the Discussion, we recommend expanding the comparison with international literature. Currently, there is a strong focus on regional references; it is recommended to integrate propagation studies of woody or medicinal species in other Mediterranean or semiarid contexts, reinforcing their global relevance;

Response 7: More references were added to the discussion and modifications were made to improve this section (please see lines 741, 754-757, 765-767, 790-792, 801-802, 806-807).

Comment 8:  Conclusion: We recommend making the conclusion more concise and impactful, highlighting that S. tomentosa presented the best rooting results, while S. officinalis was the most recalcitrant species; that rooting depended heavily on the origin of the cuttings, the season, and the application of IBA, with greater efficiency in the fall; and that the developed vegetative propagation protocols are applicable in commercial nurseries and can support the sustainable exploitation of Mediterranean Salvia species for horticulture, landscaping, and the pharmaceutical industry;

Response 8: The conclusions are presented stating the main factors that affect rooting of cuttings, highlighting the best results and proposing a propagation protocol. We preferred not to make it even more concise, but we added a sentence at end about the possible applications of this protocol.

Comment 9:  References: We recommend updating the bibliography with recent studies (from the last 5 years) on vegetative propagation and auxin application in aromatic/medicinal plants. It is recommended to standardize the citation style, ensuring uniformity in the use of et al. (in italics and with a period). Whenever possible, include DOI;

Response 9: We checked again the uniformity of citation style and we added more references [77-80, 85-87].

"et al." was written in italics (please see lines 753, 761, 767, 779), although we think that the MDPI's instructions don't ask for “et al.” in italics.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf