Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
After sending the manuscript “Prediction and surveillance sampling assessment in plant nurseries and fields”, and receiving your comments, we hereby resubmit it, including the requested corrections and improvements in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. The manuscript addresses a very interesting topic, that is, a model to model the occurrence of a disease in fields. To do this, the author/s propose a Structured Additive Regression. 

The paper’s argument is built on an appropriate base of theory, and the research is well designed.  In this case the statement of objectives such as elaborate a general strategy for estimation and prediction, are correct for the resolution of the hypothesis. However, to improve clarity and understanding of the manuscript some changes are required:

- A complete review of English is advisable. For example:"The remainder of this paper is organized as follows..." it is a poorly constructed sentence. It would be better to rephrase that paragraph (80-87) .

 

- Expand the conclusions a little more, taking up the objectives that were established in the introduction, if any objective was not answered, the reasons that justify why it was not possible to carry out should be given. It is important at this point to show the problems that were faced throughout the investigation.

This is an interesting and valuable discussion, I think that this manuscript is well-researched and an important contribution to knowledge.

Other minor suggestions:
1. What are the limitations of research?
2. What are the possibilities of future research?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
After sending the manuscript “Prediction and surveillance sampling assessment in plant nurseries and fields”, and receiving your comments, we hereby resubmit it, including the requested corrections and improvements in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Background: Please recheck the logical structural relationship between the paragraphs Please add more than 25 references, including the article I recommended last time (DOI: 10.3390 / ijerph19063532).

2.Result:

(1) Why is there only 3.1 but no 3.2..? Please check carefully.

(2) Please do not appear formulas in the headings in figures 3, 5 and 6

3.Discussion:

(1) Please rearrange and summarize the text content to highlight the hierarchy of the structure, such as "first, second...".

(2) Please write the shortcomings of this paper or the future research directions in the end.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
After sending the manuscript “Prediction and surveillance sampling assessment in plant nurseries and fields”, and receiving your comments, we hereby resubmit it (Second Round), including the requested corrections and improvements, together with the explanations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx