Genetically Modified Crops in Romania before and after the Accession of the European Union

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a review paper and thus not new or innovative science. It is an interesting commentary on the development of GMOs in Romania and the changes imposed by EU regulatory requirements after accession. The English is poor and  I have edited the Abstract as an example . I also attach some specific comments.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer

we do appreciate your support in developing further our article

Please know that we will accept all suggested changes - thank you.

Related to line 338 – 379 Is it relevant to list GM crops NOT tested or cultivated in RO. ? And to discuss GM crop developments in other countries ?

We considered that after 2007 RO is part of a group of countries and therefore it is relevant to understand better the place of our country compared to the others.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript by Antofie and Sand-Sava analyses and discusses important biosafety issues concerning genetically modified crops in Romania before and after the country’s accession to the European Union. In general, the manuscript is well written and would be of interest to the Agriculture readers. However, before this work can be published, some minor corrections and additional clarifications are needed.

My general suggestions are provided below:

1. The structure and content of the abstract need substantial improvement. In the abstract, the new and/or important findings of the study should be highlighted. It must include the most important concepts and implications, and show what was exactly done, so that the reader could understand the main idea and message of the study.
2. The correct verb tense must be used in the abstract and everywhere in the text: present tense for the topic and known facts, problems and questions, and past tense to describe results and analyses.
3. The Introduction is rather confusing. Each paragraph should be deal with a specific topic and the context must be clear, which is not currently seen in the manuscript. Structure of the Introduction needs improvement.
4. The abbreviation of Roundup Ready soybean (RR soybean) is introduced twice (page 4, line 196-197; page 6, line 262). Further in the text, however, the abbreviation is not used (page 10, line 456). The same is true for “National Official Catalogue”, which was introduced once on page 3 (lines 118-119), and then again (line 261). Place the abbreviated form immediately after the full from, e.g. National Official Catalogue (NOC), Roundup Ready soybean (RR soybean).
5. Also add to the legend of Figure 1, the meaning of “RR soybean” – it exists in the graph but missing in the legend. Could you please clarify the sentence “Graphic realized based on data collected from the published NOCs” (lines 258-259)
6. When citing the figures, simply use Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, instead of Fig. no. 1 (line 272) and Fig. no. 2 (line 324).
7. “the Vlaams Interuniversitair Instituut voor Biotechnologie” in English is “the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology” (page 8, line 371)
8. The manuscript requires linguistic and grammar revision. It is hard to understand the meaning in many cases. Often the wrong comma usage or absence of commas make it hard to get a clear meaning. Only some of the problems are listed below.

• Replace “crops cultivation” with “crop cultivation” in the abstract and everywhere in the text. The same is true for “crops testing”, “crops varieties” (page 5, lines 241, 249). In most cases the word “crop” is used as an adjective.
• Replace “a balanced stakeholders from the global level” with “balanced stakeholders at the global level” (page 1, line 35).
• Replace “It was rapid followed” with “It was rapidly followed” (page 3, line 132)
• Rephrase the sentence (page 4, lines 190-193)
• Replace “followed strict” with “followed strictly” (page 5, line 240)
• Replace “standards procedures” with “standard procedures” (page 5, line 250)
• Replace “either based on Agrobacterium transformation [42] either” with “either based on Agrobacterium transformation [42] or” (page 6, line 286).
• Replace “genetically modified rise” with “genetically modified rice” (page 7, line 310)
• Replace “plots surfaces” with “plot surfaces” (page 7, line 320)
• Replace “social - landmark” with “social landmark” (page 8, line 352)
• What exactly do the authors mean by “laps for almost 10 years between 2012 and 2009 creates” (page 8, line 375)?
• Replace “underline” with “underlines” (page 9, line 384)
• Rephrase the first two sentences in the Discussion section (page 9, lines 403-409)
• ?? “an entire whole plant”– use just “entire” or “whole”, not both (page 9, line 412)
• Replace “up-date” with “update” (page 10, line 435)
• Replace “Developed” with “Develop” (page 10, line 465)
• Omit “however” (page 11, line 489) and “more” (page 11, line 499)
• Replace “procedure should smoothly” with “procedure should smooth” (page 11, line 518)
• What the authors mean by “but thar are” (page 11, line 530)?
• Replace “data base” with “database” (page 12, line 551)
• Rephrase the sentence (page 12, lines 559-563)

Overall, the manuscript presents a nice overview of the past and current state of GM crop testing and cultivation in Romania, and will be better once all the issues indicated in the comments are solved.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

we do appreciate your effort in developing our article towards the best as much as possible. We positivelly responded at almost all items and we adddded a form in track changes also

Thank you  

1. The structure and content of the abstract need substantial improvement. In the abstract, the new and/or important findings of the study should be highlighted. It must include the most important concepts and implications, and show what was exactly done, so that the reader could understand the main idea and message of the study.

A: we already applied suggestion from Rev no 1.

1. The correct verb tense must be used in the abstract and everywhere in the text: present tense for the topic and known facts, problems and questions, and past tense to describe results and analyses.

OK!

1. The Introduction is rather confusing. Each paragraph should be deal with a specific topic and the context must be clear, which is not currently seen in the manuscript. Structure of the Introduction needs improvement.

OK!

1. The abbreviation of Roundup Ready soybean (RR soybean) is introduced twice (page 4, line 196-197; page 6, line 262).

A: corrected

 Further in the text, however, the abbreviation is not used (page 10, line 456).

A: corrected

The same is true for “National Official Catalogue”, which was introduced once on page 3 (lines 118-119), and then again (line 261). Place the abbreviated form immediately after the full from, e.g. National Official Catalogue (NOC), Roundup Ready soybean (RR soybean).

A: corrected

1. Also add to the legend of Figure 1, the meaning of “RR soybean” – it exists in the graph but missing in the legend. Could you please clarify the sentence “Graphic realized based on data collected from the published NOCs” (lines 258-259)

A: corrected

1. When citing the figures, simply use Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, instead of Fig. no. 1 (line 272) and Fig. no. 2 (line 324).

A: corrected

1. “the Vlaams Interuniversitair Instituut voor Biotechnologie” in English is “the Flanders Institute for Biotechnology” (page 8, line 371)

A: corrected

1. The manuscript requires linguistic and grammar revision. It is hard to understand the meaning in many cases. Often the wrong comma usage or absence of commas make it hard to get a clear meaning. Only some of the problems are listed below.

A: we will cope with EN language correction in the final accepted draft

• Replace “crops cultivation” with “crop cultivation” in the abstract and everywhere in the text. The same is true for “crops testing”, “crops varieties” (page 5, lines 241, 249). In most cases the word “crop” is used as an adjective.

A: corrected

• Replace “a balanced stakeholders from the global level” with “balanced stakeholders at the global level” (page 1, line 35).

A: corrected

• Replace “It was rapid followed” with “It was rapidly followed” (page 3, line 132)

A: corrected

• Rephrase the sentence (page 4, lines 190-193)

A: rephrased

• Replace “followed strict” with “followed strictly” (page 5, line 240)

A: corrected

• Replace “standards procedures” with “standard procedures” (page 5, line 250)

A: corrected

• Replace “either based on Agrobacterium transformation [42] either” with “either based on Agrobacterium transformation [42] or” (page 6, line 286).

A: corrected

• Replace “genetically modified rise” with “genetically modified rice” (page 7, line 310)

A: corrected

• Replace “plots surfaces” with “plot surfaces” (page 7, line 320)

A: corrected

• Replace “social - landmark” with “social landmark” (page 8, line 352)

A: corrected

• What exactly do the authors mean by “laps for almost 10 years between 2012 and 2009 creates” (page 8, line 375)?

A: Changed laps with period

• Replace “underline” with “underlines” (page 9, line 384)

A: corrected

• Rephrase the first two sentences in the Discussion section (page 9, lines 403-409)

Tried to do it

• ?? “an entire whole plant”– use just “entire” or “whole”, not both (page 9, line 412)

A: corrected

• Replace “up-date” with “update” (page 10, line 435)

A: corrected

• Replace “Developed” with “Develop” (page 10, line 465)

A: corrected

• Omit “however” (page 11, line 489) and “more” (page 11, line 499)

A: corrected

• Replace “procedure should smoothly” with “procedure should smooth” (page 11, line 518)

A: corrected

• What the authors mean by “but thar are” (page 11, line 530)?

A: corrected there instead of thar

• Replace “data base” with “database” (page 12, line 551)

A: corrected

• Rephrase the sentence (page 12, lines 559-563)

We tried to

Overall, the manuscript presents a nice overview of the past and current state of GM crop testing and cultivation in Romania, and will be better once all the issues indicated in the comments are solved.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

MS on Genetically modified crops in Romania before and after the accession of the European union is written fairly ok however it need minor revision as many places ms flow is missing. 

1. line no 240 to 252 requires rearrangement of the sentences properly
2. line no 307 to 309 requires rearrangement of the sentences properly
3. line no 365 to 379 requires rearrangement of the sentences properly
4. author should re-write the sentences from line no 383 to 386
5. line 399 contains "major economic mechanism " may not be proper word here can be changed accordingly
6. author mentioned only no of  dossier among EU countries for field testing however, did not mention about the area, yield gain and income advantages with adoption of GM crops in Romania, i my view there should be a table of information for this 
7. finally author must focus more on economic impact before and after adoption of the GM crop in Romania.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

we do appreciate your effort in supporting the development of our article

We responded at almost all identified items. However for some we still need clarifications

Thank you again for your kind support

1. line no 240 to 252 requires rearrangement of the sentences properly

A: We try to improve it

1. line no 307 to 309 requires rearrangement of the sentences properly

A: We try to improve it

1. line no 365 to 379 requires rearrangement of the sentences properly

A: We try to improve it

1. author should re-write the sentences from line no 383 to 386

A: We try to improve it

1. line 399 contains "major economic mechanism " may not be proper word here can be changed accordingly

A: We try to improve it –main mechanism

1. author mentioned only no of dossier among EU countries for field testing however, did not mention about the area, yield gain and income advantages with adoption of GM crops in Romania, i my view there should be a table of information for this 

We do not clearly understand if is productivity (yield gain) and income for Romania?

1. finally author must focus more on economic impact before and after adoption of the GM crop in Romania.

We will try to cope with this more for discussion

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

English is improved but  still poor