Recent Progress in Diatom Research in the Yangtze River Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is a re view of recent diatom literature on sites in the Yangtze River basin. Due to the nature of the material presented it cannot be reviewed as a standard research article. While it is not research per se, it does provide a valuable summary of the information on the region, particularly for the researcher new to the area.
There are numerous grammar issues. The manuscript needs to be edited by an English speaker.
The study includes publications with articles that are written in Chinese and English not English and Chinese publications.
Ln 59-61 – Delete sentence
Ln 76-78 – Restate for clarity
Ln 84 – Adding “ed” or “ing” to a word does not make it a verb; “sourced” is incorrect
Ln 90-97 – For the purposes of this manuscript the discussion of the graphics programs is more detailed than necessary. The selection of programs does not have an impact on the manuscript.
Figure 1 – Too small; should include the locations of all sites discusses in the text.
Ln 111-118 – Are the number of authors listed, the number of different authors or are duplicates included more than once if they appear on more than one paper?
Figure 2 – Why does figure not cover the entire period 1995-2023?
Table 1-4; Figure 3-5 – List consistently either English then Chinese or Chinese then English for consistency; follow the same pattern in the text.
Figure 6 – Not necessary
Ln 170-172 – If this is a classification that differs from that used in other places than there should be some detail as to how it differs. Numbers less than 10 should be spelled out, as they are elsewhere.
Ln 203-373 – It is difficult to tell if the conclusions discussed are those of the original authors or summaries of several papers by the current authors.
Ln 244-247 – Some graphic context would help the reader follow the discussion
Ln 256 – periphytic or benthic
Ln 303-305 – The meaning of the statement as written is unclear.
Ln 359-360 – Need reference for Fragilaria ecology
Ln 365 – “… past 18.5 ka” should be “past 18,500 years.” The term “ka” is used for a date not an interval of time.
Ln 369 – Doesn’t the temperature increase to the thermal maximum?
Ln 384 – Taxonomists are “trained” not “cultivated.”
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are numerous grammar issues. The manuscript needs to be edited by an English speaker.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer #1:
There are twenty-one major comments and suggestions from Reviewer#1. We have made point-to-point revisions as follows.
1.The manuscript is a re view of recent diatom literature on sites in the Yangtze River basin. Due to the nature of the material presented it cannot be reviewed as a standard research article. While it is not research per se, it does provide a valuable summary of the information on the region, particularly for the researcher new to the area.
Response: Thanks for your comment. We have modified the article structure to follow the MDPI review article format.
2.There are numerous grammar issues. The manuscript needs to be edited by an English speaker.
Response: Thanks for your comment. We have revised the manuscript thoroughly.
- The study includes publications with articles that are written in Chinese and English not English and Chinese publications.
Response: Thanks for your comment. We replaced "publications" with "articles" in revised manuscript.
- Ln 59-61 – Delete sentence
Response: Yes. This sentence was removed.
- Ln 76-78 – Restate for clarity
Response: Yes. It is corrected.
L65-66 " In order to advance diatom research, we gathered recent articles on diatom research in the Yangtze River Basin and explored the trends in diatom research outputs during the last three decades."
- Ln 84 – Adding “ed” or “ing” to a word does not make it a verb; “sourced” is incorrect.
Reply: Yes. This sentence was revised.
L68-69: A systematic survey of diatom research in the Yangtze River Basin was conducted in the Web of Science and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang databases
- Ln 90-97 – For the purposes of this manuscript the discussion of the graphics programs is more detailed than necessary. The selection of programs does not have an impact on the manuscript.
Response: Yes.
The sentence “the ‘ggpubr’ [27], ‘ggplot2’ [28], ‘openxlsx’ [29], and ‘showtext’ [30] packages in R were employed to visualize and analyze the data of publications over recent years. Word frequency statistics were conducted and plotted using the ‘wordcloud2’ [31] pack-age. The number of published papers in each journal was collected and sorted. The top 20 journals with the highest number of diatom-related publications were selected, and a bubble map was created using the ‘ggplot2’ package in R.” was removed.
- Figure 1 – Too small; should include the locations of all sites discusses in the text.
Response: Yes.
We have added all sites in Figure 1 and enlarged the symbols.
- Ln 111-118 – Are the number of authors listed, the number of different authors or are duplicates included more than once if they appear on more than one paper?
Response: In order to reduce the confusion, we removed the number of different authors in revised manuscript.
- Figure 2 – Why does figure not cover the entire period 1995-2023?
Response: This is an important comment. According to the survey results from the three databases, the timespans of collected Chinese articles and English articles are 1996-2024 and 2002-2024. In revised manuscript, we keep the study period consistent from 1995-2023, with the missing values labelled as ‘0’.
- Table 1-4; Figure 3-5 – List consistently either English then Chinese or Chinese then English for consistency; follow the same pattern in the text.
Response: Thanks for your comment.
In revised manuscript, we keep the order of Chinese and then English.
- Figure 6 – Not necessary
Response: Yes.
In revised manuscript, we summarized five research topics and showed the trends of research topics in three major periods.
- Ln 170-172 – If this is a classification that differs from that used in other places than there should be some detail as to how it differs. Numbers less than 10 should be spelled out, as they are elsewhere.
Response: This is an important comment.
In this manuscript, we listed and supplemented the specific information (2 classes, 7 orders, 20 families, 3 subfamilies) of diatom taxonomy proposed by Professor Dexiang Jin.
- Ln 203-373 – It is difficult to tell if the conclusions discussed are those of the original authors or summaries of several papers by the current authors.
Response: Thanks for this comment.
In Discussion and Conclusions sections, we mainly summarized recent progress on diatom research in the Yangtze River Basin, most papers are published by other authors.
- Ln 244-247 – Some graphic context would help the reader follow the discussion.
Response: Thanks for this suggestion.
Since it is difficult to display all the related graphics, we provide the original references for further reading.
- Ln 256 – periphytic or benthic
Response: Yes. It is corrected.
L212: “4.2.2. Periphytic or benthic diatoms in lakes”
- Ln 303-305 – The meaning of the statement as written is unclear.
Response: Yes. This sentence is revised.
L251-253: " In the Yangtze floodplain, most lakes had free hydrological connectivity with the Yangtze River before the 1950s, while dam construction reduced river-lake water exchange and turbulent mixing in the water column."
- Ln 359-360 – Need reference for Fragilaria ecology
Response: Yes. A related reference was added.
“These taxa can adapt to cold and low-light conditions beneath the ice in alpine lakes [52]”
- Ln 365 – “… past 18.5 ka” should be “past 18,500 years.” The term “ka” is used for a date not an interval of time.
Response: Yes. It is revised.
L 304-305: “Diatom-inferred precipitation variability identified three drought periods, including the Heinrich Event 1, the Younger Dryas, and the Little Ice Age over the past 18500 years.”
- Ln 369 – Doesn’t the temperature increase to the thermal maximum?
Response: Sorry for this mistake. This sentence was revised.
L308-313: “A shift in diatom assemblages from Cyclotella to Aulacoseira generally indicated an increase trend in temperature during the early Holocene. The amplitude of climate warming from the Last Glacial to the Holocene Thermal Maximum was approximately 2.89°C in Tingming Lake, 4.27°C in Tiancai Lake, and 7.26°C in Cuoqia Lake.”
- Ln 384 – Taxonomists are “trained” not “cultivated.”
Response: Yes. It is corrected.
L322-323: “Under such a scenario, there is an urgent necessity to train more diatom taxonomists to complete this mission.”
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFrom the title it was a review, but the whole manuscript was organized as the research article, including materials and methods, discusion, This is not the correct writing format.
The information on diatom is not enough, please provide sufficient information on the diatom research progress to refine this manuscript.
The most imoortant is to point the weak in this area and the direction in future. Your opinion is very important.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer #2:
1.From the title it was a review, but the whole manuscript was organized as the research article, including materials and methods, discusion, This is not the correct writing format.
Response: Thanks for your comment.
We have modified the article structure to follow the MDPI review article format.
- The information on diatom is not enough, please provide sufficient information on the diatom research progress to refine this manuscript.
Response: This is a very important comment.
In revised manuscript, we expanded the range of publication time when searching literature. 16 papers written in Chinese and 16 papers written in English were added in bibliometric analysis. In addition, the trends of diatom research topics in three major periods are showed in Figure 6.
- The most important is to point the weak in this area and the direction in future. Your opinion is very important.
Response: Thanks for your comment.
The conclusion part highlights the future directions of diatom research.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors:
My observations and suggestions are highligth in yellow on the manuscript,
Best regards
Comments for author File: Comments.zip
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer #3:
1.Both tables can be joined so that the differences between studies can be observed more clearly.
Response:
Yes. The tables are joined.
- In lowercase
Response: Yes. It is corrected.
- Write in the red bar that refers to the number of articles per year per
Response: Thanks for your comment. We have modified the legend. The circle size indicates the number of journal articles.
- It is advisable to list the diatom species previously recorded in the study area and indicate the number of species known to date adding found by the authors.
Response: Thanks for your comment.
In the supplementary material of revised manuscript, we listed all the new diatom species in the supplementary material (Table S1).
- All years of publication must be written in bold.
Response: Thanks for your comment.
We have modified it according to the MDPI reference format, and all years are written in bold.
- List the species in alphabetical order
Response: Yes. It is revised.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThough the revision is better than before, but I don't know the aims of this review. There are many documents related with diatom, the review should be mention the important new findings and give the further study clue for the researchers.
Author Response
Though the revision is better than before, but I don't know the aims of this review. There are many documents related with diatom, the review should be mention the important new findings and give the further study clue for the researchers.
Response: Thanks for your comment.
We have added the aims of this study in the abstract and introduction sections.
L19-20: “The results can improve our understanding on diatom research progress and hence provide important clues for further studies.”
L67-68: “In addition, we aim to explore new findings of diatom research and to provide important clues for further studies.”
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors
The content of the manuscript has improved.
I still have observations in the references, please review
Greetings
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Many thanks for your helpful comments and revisions. We made revisions as follows.
- “Chinses”
Response: Sorry for this mistake. This word was revised.
L88-89: “Chinese and English articles display an annual increase rate of 5.08% and 13.43%, respectively.”
- Format errors in the reference
Response: Yes. Format errors in the references have been corrected according to your suggestions, please refer to the references for details.
