Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

you need to get to the point in most part of the manuscript. long sentences and paragraphs describing same findings are confusing. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comment. We broke the long sentences into shorter sentences and rephrased where there were ambugities. We removed a few sentences from the introduction, results, and discussions. 

We appreciate your constructive comments.  

Authors. 

Reviewer 2 Report

In short, the manuscript deals with an important issue: how to predict fruit quality of five widely-grown Vaccinium corymbosum cultivars in different cultivating locations. The methods are strong and aims of the study are well introduced. However, it looks like the MS was written in a casual manner, containing numerous language-related lapses (please see the attached file). The manuscript would further benefit from a greater narrative to bring these important results closer to the reader. Therefore, I suggest the authors to meticulously read the MS one more time in whole while trying to remove too descriptive parts and focus the story on the most important findings.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We appreciate the time you took for a thorough review of our manuscript. We addressed all of your comments point by point in the revised manuscript. The word document has track changes turned on and all the changes can be seen there. The introduction, results, and discussion are better organized to address your concerns. 

Regards,

Authors.