Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I can now inform you that the Manuscript ID: agronomy-1602789 with Title: The Essential Oil Content and Component Composition in the Oil–Bearing Rose Collection by Viktor Zolotilov, Natalya Nevkrytaya , Olga Zolotilova, Sevilia Seitadzhieva, Elena Myagkikh, Vladimir Pashtetskiy, Mikhail Karpukhin, Submitted to section: Innovative Cropping Systems, evaluate the essential–oil–bearing rose collection in terms of the essential oil content and component composition and to isolate the specimens promising for selective breeding.

I am very glad to examine this review manuscript from your Journal

After a detailed analysis of the manuscript I would like to tell next:

The present paper describes an original experimental study !

 

Results

 

Table1. General and comprehensive information, authors present only mean value and range of main components and Cv% for all varieties

 

Table 2. If authors prefer that manuscript be review article they can to include these table, otherwise in discussion you can to compared you results from obtained results from different country from table 2.

 

Table 3. we have no insight into the results from Table 3. of all three years mentioned during the discussion. We also do not have environmental parameters during the study period, only in the discussion we learn about certain differences that could affect the content of certain components of essential oils of the tested varieties of roses

 

Authors found that the most valuable major components content in the rose essential oil (citronellol, geraniol and nerol) is highly sensitive to weather conditions (high temperature and extreme drought conditions). Authors must to include table with all environmental parameters during the research period

 

General recommendation !

General and decent quality research, only main quality parameters are included in the table and discussion

results without statistically analysis, scientifically unacceptable,

discussion supported by very few adequate literature,

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments and suggestions are marked in the text

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled ''The Essential Oil Content and Component Composition in the Oil–Bearing Rose Collection'', the purpose of the article is to study the essential–oil–bearing rose collection in terms of the essential oil content and component composition and to isolate the specimens promising for selective breeding. Based on the findings of the essential-oil-bearing rose collection analysis there have been identified seven specimens rich in essential oil contained in the raw plant material and 13 specimens with a high yield of concrete. The article, however, must be improved in terms of writing since some grammar and syntax errors are present in the manuscript. They should address the subject and critically review the information from the literature.

My suggestions:

The authors need to revise the title of the paper in a more meaningful way.

The abstract is written in a way lacks logic. It should highlight the salient findings more critically. Based on what was presented by the authors, I suggest inserting an introduction sentence and a conclusion sentence in the abstract.

Keywords are present in the title, choose others.

Introduction need more convincing rational for this article. 

The results of this study are not fully explained therefore the interpretation of the results is very difficult. The author needs to provide the % increase or decrease rather than just writing ''significantly increased….''.

Provide experimental work plan at the start of M&M. No detail description is available about the experimental design.

Detail the statistical test used. The authors do not present any of the statistical assumptions used.

In tables 1, 2 and 3, Standard error or standard deviation? Please specify and improve tables captions.

Authors should discuss the results integrally. The discussion is based on individual results. I suggest that integrating the results will give more value to the work. I suggest that you discuss by integrating all your results. You can use correlation tests (PCA or Pearson Correlation). 

The discussion is poorly written hence, needs rewriting. The discussion should be further strengthened by adding some more relevant papers. The literature search is insufficient, only few related research papers in the past three years are cited, add the latest research results appropriately. See the below links if you think it will benefit your discussion.

Rewrite the conclusion! It needs to be much improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors improve their MS and accept most of reviewer suggestion!!!!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer! We highly appreciate your perusal of the revised article and positive feedback to the changes made.  Our translator has thoroughly checked the English text of the article for mistakes. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been reviewed and the reviewers' doubts have been satisfactorily clarified.

Therefore the yield concrete in conclusion line 657  is still wrong

 0.030–0.049% 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer! We highly appreciate your perusal of the revised article and positive feedback to the changes made.  Thanks to your comments we have corrected a chance mistake in “Conclusions” section: “Based on the findings of the essential–oil–bearing rose collection analysis there have been identified and recommended for inclusion in the breeding process seven specimens rich in essential oil contained in the plant raw material – 0.030–0.049% and 13 specimens with a high yield of concrete – 0.030–0.049% 0,31-0,39%.”  Minor clarifications have been made to the text of the article. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for attending the suggestions. The manuscript has been significantly improved. In view of the above, I believe that the article presents robust and consolidated content.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer! We highly appreciate your perusal of the revised article and positive feedback to the changes made.  Minor clarifications have been made to the text of the article.