Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, this research article represents an interesting investigation on Validation of the molecular markers significant for the flowering term, plant lodging, the stem geometry properties, and raffinose family oligosaccharides in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Abstract is logical providing the concise summary of the findings, The introduction needs some improvement with the flow and consistency, the methods are generally appropriate for the experiments conducted. The analysis and results presented in figures doesn’t seem logical while interpretation is supported by results. Moreover, the results are clearly described making the manuscript understandable for readers. Not much consideration has been given to referencing. In order to improve the present study, some essential modifications have to be fixed before it proceeds, and decisive action can be taken. In addition, the study needs some editing on some minor grammatical issues. All the comments and remarks are given below.

In abstract, line 25-26, “The same markers were identified in both years”, please mention the years.

In line 107-108, A001 and A001????

In Line 112-113, authors have mentioned that “a total reaction volume of 10 μL as well as the thermal cycling protocol are described in the following sections”. In which section it is mentioned?

In line 130-131, the authors have mentioned that “Field experiments were conducted in 2013, 2014, and 2015 [the 2014 and 2015 experiments were in Radzików near Warsaw (20.63 °E, 52.23 °N)]. What about 2013 experiment, where it was conducted? The authors have also mentioned that field experiments were conducted in 2013, 2014, and 2015, while somewhere they have mentioned in results the analysis from 2013-2014 and somewhere the data presented is from year 2014 and 2015. How can you make comparison of it?

In Line 132, m2 should be m². Double check this in whole manuscript.

In Line 181-182, the authors have mentioned that “The cultivars were found to flower 58 days and 68 days from the sowing date in 2014 and 2015, respectively” what caused the 10 days difference in flowering between year 2014 and 2015?

In table 2. Authors have described that during year 2014, The mean plant height was 93.8 while lodging 7.6 and 5.3, however during year 2015 the mean height was 67.4 while lodging 8.1 and 6.8. how is it that lodging was less at higher height and higher lodging at lower height? Since the lodging and height are positively correlated with each other.

In line 383-384 authors have mentioned that “However, as we concluded earlier for mapping populations (2011, 2012), there was a lack of the interaction genotype × year [13].” Then how come in year 2013 and 2014 had huge differences on genotype × year.

In line 447, “The markers from [14]”, Better to mention name of author as Gawłowska et al.

The botanical names used throughout the manuscript such as Cicer arietinum L., Lupinus luteus L. and Vicia faba L. etc. should be in italic fonts.

In line 506, “were identified for both years”. Better to mention years.

There are numerous mistakes in referencing and reference formatting. Some are mentioned here.

Reference style is not same throughout the manuscript, such as in line 128, (Kreplak et al., 2019).

Reference 26 is not cited anywhere in the manuscript.

In line 441-442, instead of writing whole author list such as, by Gali, Liu, Sindhu, Diapari, Shunmugam, Arganosa, Daba, Caron, Lachagari, Tar’an and Warkentin [28]. Just mention Gali et al. [28].

In line 480-481, “according to Burstin, Salloignon, Chabert-Martinello, Magnin-Robert, Siol, Jacquin, Chauveau, Pont, Aubert, Delaitre, Truntzer and Duc [12]”. Should be according to Burstin et al. [12].

In line 489-490, “Dumont, Fontaine, Vuylsteker, Sellier, Bodele, Voedts, Devaux, Frise, Avia and

Hilbert, [57] confirmed”, should be Doumont, et al. [57] confirmed.

In line 515, “Jiang, Diapari, Bueckert, Tar’an and Warkentin [54] reported”, should be Jiang et al. [54] reported.

There are numerous grammatical errors that need to be corrected, some of them are highlighted.

In line 167, “year interaction is rejected should be”, year interaction was rejected.

 

In line 516, “His marker”, should be their marker.

Author Response

Please find the comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The points listed below are my biggest concerns: 

1.      The language of the MS is not good and should be revised with some native English-speaking person or take some help from language editing services.

Abstract:

2.      Add some results in the abstract. A conclusion statement is necessary at the end of the abstract.

Introduction: 

3.      The introduction does not provide sufficient background regarding the studied crop pea. The introduction seems more or less like a review of the literature.

4.      Hypothesis and aim of the study should be at the end of the introduction part.

Materials and methods:

5.      Line number 85-91. The authors need not mention the name of all cultivars in the main text, since the detailed table has been already given in the MS.

Results:

6.      There are some irregularities as far as the figure caption is concerned, the figure caption should be placed below the figure, however, in the present form of MS, it is placed above the figure in between the MS text.

7.      From the line 252-265, I would suggest adding some values in the text, for example; the sentence; A total of 29 cultivars appeared to be in the same groups in both years based on their 252 verbascose concentration. Authors can give the value of that very specific concentration?

8.      From the line number 290-302, if possible present this data in tabular form.

Discussion

9.      I would suggest that authors should add a few lines related to the aim of present work done in the MS in the introductory line of discussion and then start discussing the results.

10.  Botanical names wherever mentioned must be italicized.  For example line number 395; (Cicer arietinum L.) is not italicized, Line number 408 (Vicia faba L. var. minor), etc. I recommend thoroughly checking the whole MS for this kind of major mistake.

Conclusion:

11.  This is too long. Make the conclusion section precise and summarized.

References:

 

12.  References should be checked again and all the botanical names must be italicized. 

Author Response

Please find the comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor

This title is interesting and is a novel work. But the language should be checked by a native spoken person because in some parts the readers can not understand what the authors said. The conclusion should be improved because it is just a repeat of the results section. The Discussion part should be improved. The authors should talk about the reasons why their results are in line with or different from other researchers.

Author Response

Please find the comments in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

-

Author Response

Kindly find the comments at the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised manuscript has been significantly improved compared to the previous version. The authors have addressed most of my previous comments. However, I still have some comments:
1. Authors are again requested to carefully check for  English grammatical mistakes.

2. In abstract line number 32: What does “Our” mean here?

3. Again I would like to request the authors that kindly check the English grammar and connectivity in the introduction especially from the line number 78 to 92. I would also like to suggest the authors, don’t try to present the results of previous studies like this way in the introduction section. Try to formulate some sentences from the previous studies related to your work, and then introduce your aim of study and hypothesis. In the introduction section, Line number 111: The study was also associated connected with important agronomic traits……… What does “the” refer here to? Which study the authors are referring to?

Moreover, kindly rephrase the sentences from line number 111 to 117. The objectives need to be presented a bit detailed.

4. Line Number 127: Only the cultivar Set had with normal leaves. The S of Set needs to be small and kindly remove with.

5. Line number 427 to 430: Kindly rephrase the sentence, it seems repetitive.

6. Line number 536: Kindly remove report here.

7.Few lines need to be added in the concluding part of conclusion wherein presenting the main result in one line and future prospective in one line.

 

 

Author Response

Kindly find the comments at the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx