Study on the Microbial Mechanism of Bacillus subtilis in Improving Drought Tolerance and Cotton Yield in Arid Areas
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is thematically interesting but editorially prepared not in accordance with the requirements of Agronomy.
References are in the wrong format, contain many punctuation errors and inconsistencies - clearly the authors have not read the guide or used the publication template available in Word.
The in-text citations are also incorrect - the reviewer does not understand the rationale for using double brackets when single bracket citations are generally accepted [...]. This must be corrected throughout the paper.
As well as the generic name Bacillus subtilis should be in italics - both in the title and the text of the paper - please correct this carefully.
Line 15: what was the reason for choosing dose 45 kg/ha? Please explain (not necessary in Abstract section but in the Methodology)
Line 22: what does it means SPAD? Please remember that each abbreviation must be explained in the place of first using
Introduction is too long, please try to shorten this part.
Line 99 – what was the size of the study area?
Line 132 – which soil sampler was applied? Give the model and producer
Line 135- at what distance from each other were the sample collection points? what area was represented?
Line 140- replace the comma with a full stop
Line 150-152 – lack of the method for DNA extraction, PCR conditions and the platform/technique used for sequencing. Providing the company performing the procedure does not relieve the authors from providing methodological details - especially since they provide a taxonomic description in the results and the reader does not know where or how these data were obtained from
Line 164, 166, 168 and 169 etc.- replace semicolon with a full stop (the style of punctuation with the use of ; followed by capital letters is erroneous and annoying to the reader - this should also be corrected in the other parts of the methodology - I will no longer indicate the line number because I would have to mark almost every line)
Line 292 – should be Symbiotic instead of synbiotic
I suggest to present Discussion into more concise and shorten form
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors A general improvement of the manuscript is observed, considering the suggestions made.Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for clear response on my comments and ms correction according my suggestions.
The current version is really improved and is proper to be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
