Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: New Sweet Potato Genotypes Biofortified with Beta-Carotene: Evaluation of Agronomic Potential

Dango et al. reported the the agronomic potentials of beta-carotene fortified pototo genotypes.

The MS is well-written and and its objectives were achieved. The English language is sufficient for publication in this journal.

However, repeated checks showed that most of the cited references cannot be found online, suggesting they may be unpublished works. Authors may consider adding DOI links to their citations or the url to enhance easy cross-referencing.

Kindly also find other recommendation for your attention.

-Line 1-2: “New Sweet Potato Genotypes Biofortified with Beta-Carotene: Evaluation of Agronomic Potential.” The title contains string nouns. Please consider revising it.

-Line 39: "Brazil ranks 11th among the world's largest producers (Faostat 2025)" please specify the product

-Lines 54-55: This sentence should be preceded by the varying climatic conditions of Brazil. Please insert a couple of sentences in this area.

-Table: Please insert figures for Na, SB, CTC, for Botucatu and define all parameters in the legends

-Line 105: Is “Giovani et al. (2015)” a published work?

-Line 120: Source: Author’ What does this mea?

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Response: Agree

Topic rectified

DOI links or URLs added to the citations

Product mentioned

Climatic conditions included

Soil analysis values rectified and described with naming

Published works – Initially in English, now the publication is in Portuguese

Source: Author (Prepared by me, Dango)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is written on an autarkic topic and represents a Brazilian contribution to the breeding and evaluation of sweet potato. Before the manuscript is accepted, it is necessary to make corrections. In particular, formal shortcomings make it difficult for the reader to navigate the text.  

Formal shortcomings:

line 41 - IBGE 2023, line 43 IBGR 2022, but in References only year 2018?; line 35 Goncalves 2011 - References Cpncalves Neto et al. 2011; line 58 EPAGRI 2016 - References ?; line 64 - Stoski 2014, Ringo 2018 - References ?, line 74 Borém et al 2013 - Borém and Miranda; line 82 Cosme 2005 - References is it second name?, etc. Table 2 - M.O. (standardly Mo). what is H+Al, SB, SaB, CTC. In the tables and sometimes in the text, a decimal point appears instead of the correct format, i.e. dots.  

Content deficiencies:

Introduction - is described locally from the perspective of Brazil, but in the scientific publication there is an important connection to the global context. When looking in the Web of Science, I found, for example, a publication describing breeding in Africa (Benin) - DOI: 10.17221/104/2022-CJGPB (see Web of Science and Scopus).  

Materials and Methods are described in detail and adequately, as are the results.  

Discussion - here again I recommend a more significant connection in the global context and the implementation of a critical comparison of the results. Yes, the results come from Brazil, but for the scientific community, a critical comparison in a global context is important, which will increase the impact of the entire study. An important source of data for the authors is the masters dissertation (Otoboni 2019), but here I would rather welcome peer-reviewed publications (see Web of Science or Scopus). In the manuscript, the authors also cite other final student theses (Costa 2020, Donado 2011, Senf 2018 and Velho 2016) - these works can be replaced or supplemented by scientific articles.

Abbreviations - these are certainly not all abbreviations used in the manuscript.  

References - there are confusions when comparing in the text. Careful control is required to ensure that the formats of references in the text (names, et al., etc.) correspond to the facts in the references section.  

Based on the above comments, I recommend the manuscript for publication after major revision and second review. It is essential to eliminate formal shortcomings and link information to the publication in We of Science or Scopus.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires proofreading of the English language. This mainly concerns the elimination of errors and typos - for example, incorrect formats of numbers in tables and places in the text where authors use a period instead of a decimal point, etc.

Author Response

Comments: Agree

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study on biofortified sweet potato genotypes with enhanced beta-carotene content is highly significant for addressing nutritional deficiencies, particularly vitamin A deficiency, which is a major public health concern in many regions. The evaluation of 18 new genotypes alongside three commercial cultivars across different environments in São Paulo provides valuable insights into their agronomic potential and adaptability. 

The study's focus on location-specific performance (e.g., Botucatu as a superior site) and the identification of promising genotypes (CERAT60-05, CERTA56-23, CERAT60-26, CERAT35-11) offers practical applications for farmers and breeders, potentially enhancing food security and agricultural sustainability in the region. 
I just have a few minor concerns: 

1. Clarify the term "genotype x environment interaction for 77.78% of the variables" by briefly explaining what this means for non-specialist readers or specifying which variables were most affected.
2. Provide more details about the environmental conditions (e.g., soil type, rainfall, temperature) at the central-east and central-south São Paulo locations to contextualize the GxE interactions. This would help readers understand why Location 4 (Botucatu) was superior.
3. The productivity range (31.81 to 63.60 t/ha) is impressive, but it would be useful to compare these yields to regional or global averages for sweet potatoes to highlight the genotypes' competitiveness.
4. Use consistent terminology (e.g., "genotypes" vs. "cultivars") and define technical terms like "heritability" for clarity, especially for readers unfamiliar with plant breeding.
5. Add a conclusion section at the end of the discussion

Author Response

Response: Agree

The characteristics representing 77.78% of the genotype x environment interaction have been clarified.

The methodology including temperature and precipitation data from Botucatu and Jaboticabal was added.

Productivity was compared with the top-producing countries according to FAOSTAT (2025).

The concept of heritability was defined

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the manuscript made significant changes to the manuscript and accepted most of my comments. The authors took a somewhat specific approach to dealing with the comments and uploaded a new version of the manuscript here without the marked changes. I only have formal comments on the current form of the manuscript, which lower the level of an otherwise very interesting manuscript:  

line 20 - dry Matter - correctly dry matter; line 23 - units t/ha-1 - should be according to the requirements and uniformly throughout the manuscript; Table 5 - the legend lacks explanations for */**; line 296 - environmenteffect - correctly environment effect; References - there is some improvement here, but it is still not in an ideal state, i.e. Ref. 8-12, 49 etc. not the author's name as standard; in places the format v. X, p. XXX occurs elsewhere, but not; Ref. 29 IBGE....2018, 2022 e 2023 - in the text only 2022 and 2023; given the impact on the scientific community, I consider it standard to translate the names of references from Portuguese to English and state the reference/title (in Portuguese) at the end, this is usually done in many journals.  

Based on the above comments, I recommend the manuscript for publication after minor revision (especially checking formal requirements).

Author Response

I'm agree

Author Response File: Author Response.docx