Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper use Plantian as material and try to find an application way to extend the shelf-life for export, which is benefiting the tropical agri-food chain. There were few question I raised to better understand the results.

1. I suggest adding short lead-in paragraphs before each set of results to signal the research question.

2． The meaning of different letters in distinct times were not very clear. Author should explain how they got the different letters and to me, put control and treated samples together seems  not meaningful.

3. I suggest to use the table 2’s data to make a graph ,which is more easier and directly for reader to understand.

4. As for the experimental design, why chose GA3 2.5 + Zeal3.9 uML-1， how about GA3 2.75 + Zea 3.9? Why choose those combination?

5. I suggest that including a diagram that illustrates the process, with the purpose of each approach, which will make easier for reader to follow the process

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the authors thank your suggestions. All suggestions were incorporated into the manuscript, and two new figures were produced. Figure 2 includes a diagram that illustrates the process described in this manuscript, and Figure 10 is a substitution of Table 2, as suggested by you.

 

Thanks with best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Gibberellic acid and zeatin delay 'Harton' plantain (Musa paradisiaca) ripening" investigates the use of gibberellic acid (GA₃) and zeatin (Zea) to delay ripening in Colombian Hartón plantains stored under cold conditions. The study found that the combination of GA₃ and Zea helped maintain fruit firmness, starch, and chlorophyll levels while reducing the increase in soluble solids and polyphenol oxidase activity, which are indicators of ripening. This treatment successfully extended the shelf-life of the fruit without causing structural damage or stress, offering a cost-effective and practical method to preserve plantain quality for export.

The introduction aligns well with the manuscript’s subject matter, and the references are appropriately chosen.

The Materials and Methods section is detailed.

In my opinion, the Results section appears scattered and should be more concise and focused. It is difficult to stay engaged due to the large number of charts. I recommend summarizing all results in a single table, accompanied by statistical analysis.

For Part 4, "Conclusion and Further Perspectives," I suggest separating "Further Perspectives" into its own paragraph placed before the conclusion. The Conclusion should briefly highlight the most significant findings of the study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the authors thank your suggestions. All suggestions were incorporated in the manuscript, and a new Supplementary Table S1 was produced. 

 

Thanks with best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled ‘Gibberellic acid and zeatin delay “Harton” plantain (Musa paradisiaca) ripening’ refers to a practical and meaningful study on the postharvest quality of plantain. My major comments are two:

1. In the Introduction section, the authors should indicate before the objective of the study the main hypothesis of the work. This is critical for a target study based on a scientific hypothesis and not just a repetition or “shot in the dark”.
2. The statistical analysis of the results. Based on the graphs, the presented statistical analysis focuses on comparing each treatment with the control, but not on a statistical comparison among them. Therefore, how can authors conclude which among them is the best?

Other issues

• Replace keywords that already exist in the title.
• In the results section author refers to treatments with their analytical description, but in the graph, only the codes are presented. Therefore, it is quite difficult for the author to check the results with the graphs.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, the authors thank your suggestions. All suggestions were incorporated in the manuscript, and new figures with their legends were uploaded into the manuscript.

 

Thanks with best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the author's response that presenting the results graphically is a more effective approach. However, the second suggestion was completely ignored, both in the response and in the manuscript. I still believe that Part 4, "Conclusion and Further Perspectives," should be revised. I suggest separating "Further Perspectives" into its own paragraph, placed before the conclusion. The conclusion should briefly highlight the most significant findings of the study.

Author Response

See attached letter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The result is not just a difference in percentages. First, the means must be statistically different.

Author Response

See attached letter

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf