‘Rootpac R’ for Apricots? Yes!
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We clarified the aims following Your suggestion. The manuscript discusses the differences between vegetative traits and the dynamics of development. Differences in fruit traits are not currently part of our studies due to regular frost damage. Such data are available, but further studies are needed in this area. Error bars are shown, and letters are indicating the significantly different subsets. Minor revisions are done, every advice is taken. The discussion is improved. Your notices and suggestions were very helpful, the manuscript is much professional, then before. Thank You so much!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe main problem found in this work is in the data analysis methodology. In the materials and method section, the author indicates the use of Manova for data analysis. However, Manova's results are not explored in the Results and Discussion sessions. Furthermore, the discussion of the results appears to be based on an ANOVA and not a MANOVA.
I suggest further exploring the results found, presenting and discussing the results of the proposed Manova, including using graphs and tables. I also suggest the use of a post hoc test or Discriminant Analysis in order to complement the MANOVA results and support the conclusions.
Author Response
In general, we adapted every comment, minor things for editing. ANOVA methods were used to evaluate the results. Tukey's post hoc test was used to determine statistically different groups, and this is now reported in the manuscript. Thank You for your helpful remarks!
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to the manuscript horticulturae-2955894 - "‘Rootpac R’ for apricots? Yes!."
Authors propose the report of an experiment of field comparison of sixteen apricot cultivars and two rootstocks (Myrobalan 29C and Rootpac R). The research is of potential interest but the manuscript showed some limitations that should be carefully considered by Authors.
1) The results are substantially limited to the survival rate and biometric observation of the plants in the first four years after plantation.
2) The abstract should be completely rewritten. Please delete the lines 12-18 and made the text more informative on the results of your experiment.
3) Please include in the graphs of the figures 1, 2, and 3 the results and indicators (label letters?) of the application of a mean separation test. Results presentation, discussion and conclusion in the present form are not validated by evidence of statistical significant differences.
4) Please check: 8 cited articles (5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 23, 25, 26, and 27) are not in english language. Try to change with other citations accessible to the international readers.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
The manuscript discusses the differences between vegetative traits and the dynamics of development. Differences in fruit traits are not currently part of our studies due to regular frost damage. Such data are available, but further studies are needed in this area. In general, we adapted every comment, minor things for editing. The abstract is rewritten, now it is more informative. In figures 1-3 error bars are shown, and letters are indicating the significantly different subsets. Literature pertaining to this particular subject is quite scarce, especially with regard to 'Rootpac R'. In composing this manuscript, we endeavored to incorporate the most pertinent and precise information available. Furthermore, we are actively seeking additional articles on this subject in English to further enrich our understanding. Your notices and suggestions were very helpful, the manuscript is ameliorated a lot!
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
The submitted paper "Rootpac R for Apricots? Yes!" represents an original study in which a new, as yet commercially unutilized rootstock was tested in combination with 16 apricot cultivars, compared to the Myrobalan 29C rootstock as a control. Overall, the experimental design is suitable, and the referenced literature is predominantly up-to-date. The figures are clear and easy to comprehend. While the significance of this research is indisputable, the paper's structure is not very well organized, and many issues need to be addressed to make it suitable for publication.
The abstract needs to be rewritten according to the instructions provided by the journal. The Introduction section provides insight into the research background, but some changes are necessary to avoid repetition of information and to enhance readability. The objective of the study lacks clarity, potentially causing confusion for the reader regarding the specific outcomes expected when grafting onto the tested rootstock as opposed to the control (for example, whether the objective is to achieve greater or lesser vegetative growth).
The Materials and Methods section lacks clear structure, and the investigated parameters were not described in detail or logically arranged in the text. The description of the plant species under investigation is the same or very similar to the sentences from the Introduction.
While the data obtained are valuable, the presentation of results could be improved. Apart from the graphs, which do not include statistics, no other data are presented, which is a limitation of the study. Many statistical methods are listed, yet no statistics are shown in the Results section. Additionally, adequate discussion of the results is completely absent. Very few references were cited, and the context is poor. The majority of the text in the Discussion section is repeated from the Introduction, Methods, and Results sections.
More specific comments and suggestions are provided in the attached PDF file.
Kind regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
The abstract is rewritten, now it is more informative. The aims are clarified, and the observation of vegetative characteristics is highlighted. Materials and methods, Discussion are rewritten, more references are cited. Your notices and suggestions were very helpful, the manuscript is much professional, then before. Thank You for your helpful remarks!
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to the manuscript horticulturae-2955894 ‘Rootpac R’ for apricots? Yes!.
In my opinion, authors have sufficiently changed the manuscript according to the suggestions of the first round review. Still remain, however, the citations number 5, 6, 8, 19, 23, 24, 25, and 27 absolutely unuseful for the international readers because not in the English language. Please remove or change with other citations.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank You for your positive response. The citations in question are removed and minor English editing was performed. We also consider requests from another reviewers and upload the final manuscript. Thank you for your help!
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editors and Authors,
After reviewing the manuscript, I notice that improvements have been made, but major shortcomings still persist. The abstract has been enhanced, the overly long introductory part in abstract has been shortened, and results have been added. Some comments in the Introduction section have been adopted, while certain comments have been reiterated in this report to ensure coherence and avoid repetition. The aim is now clearer compared to the initial version of the manuscript. The Materials and Methods section has also been improved. The main issue lies in the part describing the plant material, as most of the information has already been provided in the Introduction. To avoid redundancy, further revisions are necessary. For better readability, I recommend Authors maintain a consistent order of describing and discussing parameters throughout the manuscript. There are several technical issues, such as inconsistency in the use of abbreviations and repetition of sentences and paragraphs that, while not identical, convey the same context. A moderate revision of English language is needed.
The main shortcoming of the manuscript is the weak discussion, or even its absence for certain parameters. The discussion continues to exhibit significant repetition of results without additional elaboration. Perhaps merging results and discussion into a single section would help avoid repetitions and allow space for discussion after each parameter. I advise the Authors to explore additional literature that could contribute to the development of the Discussion (for example, how the cultivars used in this study behaved on different rootstocks and under different climate conditions in terms of survival rate, or commenting on whether certain cultivars stood out in terms of specific parameters, as the results for vegetative characteristics are presented collectively, after which you can compare them with other studies, etc.). While interesting, results without adequate discussion are insufficient.
Additional guidelines and suggestions are provided in the attached PDF file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time and energy to review our manuscript. The requested changes have been implemented. The manuscript now has the same order of tested traits. The abbreviations are also consistent. To avoid duplication, we have taken your advice and merged the Results and Discussion sections into one. The English has been improved. Thank you for your help in improving the quality of the manuscript, we hope it now meets your expectations.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have sufficiently changed the manuscript according to reviewer's suggestions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful for Your help with our manuscript.
Thank You so much!
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editors and Authors,
The manuscript has been improved according to the given suggestions. Certain technical errors have been corrected, but some suggestions for further revision are provided in the PDF file. Corrections to the English language are also necessary. I have observed that the abstract requires further revision according to the Journal’s template, and certain sentences are repeated multiple times in both the results and conclusion, as I indicated in the comments in the PDF file. Although merging the Results and Discussion sections helped avoid repetition of results in the discussion, I still believe that further development of the discussion of results through analysis of results from other studies is needed. Some guidelines are provided in my previous reviews. If there are no studies that could help to develop the discussion regarding the specific examined vegetative characteristics of rootstocks and cultivars addressed in this study, this should be clearly indicated. The discussion should then be based on the available literature that is relevant to the study. Some references have been commented on but not sufficiently. It's not sufficient for a characteristic to be discussed in just one sentence after presenting the results.
Kind regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks for Your time and effort You took in enhancing the scientific level of our manuscript. We believe, that without Your helpful suggestions, this paper would face challanges to meet the requirements of the Journal. We hope, that this three rounds of improvement resulted in a manuscript with a quality fair enough.
Thank You again!
