Evaluation of Chemical Composition of Some Silphium L. Species as Alternative Raw Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors: Your manuscript should be improve a lot. The abstract is not clear as the rest of the manuscript. Try to make it the most precise and concise, taking in consideration the relevant information.

General comments:

1. Use three significant figures in your numbers, round to the nearest value. Applied in the whole script and tables.
2. Define symbols before use them and after you define it first, use the symbols in the whole scrypt.
3. make sure you use the same font size, color and form (bold or regular).
4. You have several areas with extremely long sentences hard to follow and get your point.
5. No statistical design and replicates are mentioned in the manuscript. Although, you mentionses that you run ANOVA, how come?
6. Explain the climatic condition of your experiment. People from another part of the world doesnt know which months are spring in your country and the conditions during those months.
7. In table 1 you are using codes which are not use all the time. 
8. Use the same format for units!!! to much lack of consistency in the whole script. use / or -1. One or the other.
9. The size of the font in the tables are to small. If you can have all the information in one table, split the information in several tables.  I needed to increase the of the page to 200, to be able to see the numbers properly. Again, use three sign figures and rounded to the nearest value. You are not doing nano studies, so no need to add to many sign. figures.
10. Each table and figure should be self explanatory without reading the title or the whole script. Add relevant information to improve them.
11. Your abstract did not match with your abstract. They should have a similar message written in a different way.
12. Again, same for title and abstract. The abstract did not match with the title.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I attach the paper entitled: „ Evaluation of Chemical Composition of Some Silphium L. Species as Alternative Raw Materials” which has been corrected in accordance with reviewers’ and editor’s comments (agriculture-761071).

Changes in the text (Manuscript.doc) are marked with a red font.

We would like to thank you for thoroughly reviewing the manuscript and their thoughtful criticism. We appreciate your suggestions and have revised the manuscript to address the comments and followed all suggestions to strengthen the manuscript.

I hope that my corrections will prove suitable enough for the demands of the publisher. I am still open to all further critical remarks and suggestions.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Comments:

1. Use three significant figures in your numbers, round to the nearest value. Applied in the whole script and tables - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.
2. Define symbols before use them and after you define it first, use the symbols in the whole scrypt - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.
3. make sure you use the same font size, color and form (bold or regular) - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.
4. You have several areas with extremely long sentences hard to follow and get your point - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.
5. No statistical design and replicates are mentioned in the manuscript. Although, you mentionses that you run ANOVA, how come? - All analyzes were performed in triplicate. - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.
6. Explain the climatic condition of your experiment. People from another part of the world doesnt know which months are spring in your country and the conditions during those months – I attached Fig. 2 and added information in the text.

7. In table 1 you are using codes which are not use all the time - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.
8. Use the same format for units!!! to much lack of consistency in the whole script. use / or -1. One or the other - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.
9. The size of the font in the tables are to small. If you can have all the information in one table, split the information in several tables. I needed to increase the of the page to 200, to be able to see the numbers properly. Again, use three sign figures and rounded to the nearest value. You are not doing nano studies, so no need to add to many sign. Figures - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.
10. Each table and figure should be self explanatory without reading the title or the whole script. Add relevant information to improve them - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.
11. Your abstract did not match with your abstract. They should have a similar message written in a different way - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.
12. Again, same for title and abstract. The abstract did not match with the title - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.

Language correction of text (grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript) I have entrusted my colleague Paweł Pasikowski (Translator and Interpreter, English Language Instructor.).

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript describes the evaluation of the chemical composition of three Silphium species (S. perfoliatum, S. trifoliatum and S. integrifolium). Each component was well analyzed and the data are informative to the readers. These results will contribute to the understanding of the utility of the Silphium species as biological resources.

Minor point

Line 23, Keywords

Scientific names should be written in italics.

Line 390

The line break position is incorrect.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I attach the paper entitled: „ Evaluation of Chemical Composition of Some Silphium L. Species as Alternative Raw Materials” which has been corrected in accordance with reviewers’ and editor’s comments (agriculture-761071).

Changes in the text (Manuscript.doc) are marked with a red font.

We would like to thank you for thoroughly reviewing the manuscript and their thoughtful criticism. We appreciate your suggestions and have revised the manuscript to address the comments and followed all suggestions to strengthen the manuscript.

I hope that my corrections will prove suitable enough for the demands of the publisher. I am still open to all further critical remarks and suggestions.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Comments:

1. Comments:

   This manuscript describes the evaluation of the chemical composition of three Silphium species (S. perfoliatum, S. trifoliatum and S. integrifolium). Each component was well analyzed and the data are informative to the readers. These results will contribute to the understanding of the utility of the Silphium species as biological resources.

   Minor point

   Line 23, Keywords

   Scientific names should be written in italics - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.

   Line 390

   The line break position is incorrect - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.

    

Language correction of text (grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript) I have entrusted my colleague Paweł Pasikowski (Translator and Interpreter, English Language Instructor.).

Reviewer 3 Report

The article presents the results of a research regarding the chemical composition of three Asteraceae species of economic interest: Silphium perfoliatum, S. trifoliatum and S. integrifolium. Silphium perfoliatum represents an innovative crop plant of North American origin, which is experimentally cultivated in various European countries and demonstrates a good hardiness regarding climatic factors. The authors measure the content in proteins, fat, water-soluble sugars , cellulose, chlorophyll, macro- and trace elements.

Analytical procedures are correctly described, performed according to standards and results are presented clearly. Comparative discussions are inserted.

After correcting some minor spelling and English style errors, the article is recommended for publication.

- line 42 : remove the word « oraz » after S. trifoliatum

- line 55: insert “were” acquired

- proofread by native English speaker in order to improve English style

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

I attach the paper entitled: „ Evaluation of Chemical Composition of Some Silphium L. Species as Alternative Raw Materials” which has been corrected in accordance with reviewers’ and editor’s comments (agriculture-761071).

Changes in the text (Manuscript.doc) are marked with a red font.

We would like to thank you for thoroughly reviewing the manuscript and their thoughtful criticism. We appreciate your suggestions and have revised the manuscript to address the comments and followed all suggestions to strengthen the manuscript.

I hope that my corrections will prove suitable enough for the demands of the publisher. I am still open to all further critical remarks and suggestions.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Comments:

After correcting some minor spelling and English style errors, the article is recommended for publication.

- line 42 : remove the word « oraz » after S. trifoliatum - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.

- line 55: insert “were” acquired - corrected as recommended by the reviewer.

- proofread by native English speaker in order to improve English style- corrected as recommended by the reviewer.

Language correction of text (grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript) I have entrusted my colleague Paweł Pasikowski (Translator and Interpreter, English Language Instructor.).