Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see my comments and suggestions in the pdf document. Thanks.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

I read and check your manuscript with much interest. Overall, yours is good, but I recommend you to revise/clarify me some points, so that your manuscript will attract valuable readers much more.

 

• Please, explain why you formed biofilms in tube instead microtiter plates (Section 2.3).
• Explain the importance of study the Paenibacillus in terms of biofilm formation and EPS biosynthesis. It was not clear for me. This information should appear clearer in the manuscript.
• Explain the contribution of the results in terms of their application in different biotechnological areas.
• In material and methods section, I think you can added information about the statistical analysis performed.
• Line 58, It seems like you forgot a point after the “spp.”
• Line, 51, 67, 207 you can change Paenibacillus polymyxa by P. polymyxa.
• Line 129, you can change NH4Cl by NH₄Cl.

 

Positive points:

• Figures are very attractive, clean, clear with statistical analysis well represented.
• The manuscript is well written with essential information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf