Morphological and Physiological Responses of Brassica chinensis on Different Far-Red (FR) Light Treatments Using Internet-of-Things (IoT) Technology
, Norliza Mohamed 2, Abd Rahman Abdul Rahim 2 and Hazilah Mad Kaidi 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Morphological and Physiological Responses of Brassica Chinensis on Far Red LED under Internet-of-Thing (IoT) Technology” by Harun, et al., talks about the LEDs' light manipulation techniques on morphological and physiological responses of Brassica Chinensis. This research could be valuable in agriculture especially in crop productivity enhancement, despite the following concerns.
The language used in the manuscript is not up to the standard for publication, and several major and minor mistakes are shown, and many of the phrases are not clear. It should go through complete proofreading by a native speaker.
Say something about LED light treatment levels in the abstract section before talking about the results.
Also mention the future perspective of this study at the end of the abstract section, talking about how this technology can benefit the researchers and farming community.
Keywords must be different from title words
Add some latest information regarding the agronomical importance of Brassica Chinensis in the first paragraph of the introduction section.
The introduction section needs some attention regarding its organization for grammar and sentence errors which creates confusion. Moreover, this section is too lengthy which makes it a little speculative and exaggerated. Authors should focus on specific and to the point information relating to their experiment as there are many irrelevant statements in this section.
At the end of the introduction section, also state that how this research can benefit the community in the coming future.
Figure 7: how did you calculate the error bars? Did you calculate as per the values of standard deviations? Because the larger margin of error in some cases produces confusion and contradiction. Also, mention the letters in graphs. The same is the case for Figures 8, 9, 10.
Figure 11: the picture quality is very poor and it should be replaced
The other major drawback is a too lengthy discussion of results. This is a good thing but on the other hand, it makes it very exaggerated and speculative. Moreover, there are some irrelevant and outdated citations in this section as well. This section needs critical revisions
The references are not properly formatted. Please follow the format as per the author’s guidelines provided by the journal.
To sum up, this manuscript can find interest to readers in this field. However, I feel the above-mentioned suggestions may be incorporated.
Good Luck!
Author Response
The paper has been revised based on the reviewers' comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the comments attached. I think you need to invest a significant amount of time on the paper and work mainly on the method and results section.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The paper has been revised based on the reviewers' comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is written correctly and contains relevant content for the science and practice of agriculture in wetland facilities. The abstract and keywords are appropriate and the introduction relates to the research problem. The research methods used are appropriate. The authors built a system to monitor selected plant parameters, which, treated as markers, were used to adjust lighting to model plant flowering time. The identified characteristics of the influence of particular lighting combinations constitute new knowledge and the use of information technology allows the solution to be widely applied and implemented on other plants. The results are correct and contribute to science and have important practical implications. However, there is one remark that needs clarification: Table 6 presents a number of parameters, and that is good, but there is no explanation of the relationship of leaf area to dry mass or moisture.
Author Response
The paper has been revised based on the reviewers' comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
