Optimization of ‘Tainongyihao’ Mango Inflorescence-Cutting Technology
, Yijia Gao 1,2,†, Jiabing Jiao 1,2,†, Ling Wei 1,2, Shaopu Shi 1,2, Tahir Hassam 1,2, Minjie Qian 1,2, Kaibing Zhou 1,2,* and Yuanwen Teng 3,*
H.M.Prathibhani Chamidha Kumarihami
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article needs some revision.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Greetings! Thank you for your guidance and support!
Q1.The description of the results does not always correspond to the data presented in the tables.
Answer: We have checked the full text carefully and modified the full manuscript to align the description of results with the data in the tables, taking into account statistically significant differences, and some according conclusions has been adjusted. Regarding to example 1, we explain the results from the trends. Regarding to example 2 and example 3, we made mistakes in reading table 2 and table 3, table 7 and table 8 respectively, and we have corrected them now.
We feel very lucky that your guidance help us to improve the academic level of our thesis. Thank you again!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author/s,
In general, I noticed only a minor corrections in the manuscript which are highlighted.
The study is timely important and the contents in the manuscript are well presented logically.
However, please consider the points which I have shown in the manuscript.
Thank you.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Some editing for English language is required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Greetings! Thank you for your guidance and support!
Q1.The problem on the incomplete sentence in section abstract.
Answer: We have modified it.
Q2. The problem on the inappropriate keywords in section keywords.
Answer: We have modified it.
Q3. It was unclear in the words “ the dry weight 5 cm above the grafting union”.
Answer:We have modified it.
Q4: The mistakes in table 2.
Answer: We have modified them.
Q5.The mistake in the tittle 3.3.2.
Answer: Thank you for your modification!
We feel very lucky that your guidance help us to improve the academic level of our thesis. Thank you again!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
-
I have a few suggestions. First, the references could be more up-to-date. Only about 30% of the citations are from the last five years. Given the rapid advancements in AI-based precision agriculture and mechanised thinning techniques, incorporating more recent studies from 2019 to 2024 would significantly enhance the manuscript's relevance.
Additionally, the references are predominantly from Chinese sources, which is good. However, including more international research from the US, Europe, and other key horticultural regions would improve the article's scientific depth and broaden its impact. Certain sections could benefit from some language refinement for clarity and readability. Minor methodological clarifications, particularly regarding statistical approaches and justification for treatment classifications, would also strengthen the manuscript.
Some sentences are overly complex, and minor grammatical errors are present. Editing for conciseness and clarity would improve readability. Specific areas needing improvement include sentence structure in the introduction and results sections, where some descriptions are lengthy and difficult to follow.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Greetings! Thank you for your guidance and support!
Q1.First, the references could be more up-to-date. Only about 30% of the citations are from the last five years. Given the rapid advancements in AI-based precision agriculture and mechanised thinning techniques, incorporating more recent studies from 2019 to 2024 would significantly enhance the manuscript's relevance.
Answer: We have alternated some up-to-date reference and added some rapid advancements in AI-based precision agriculture and mechanised thinning techniques.
Q2. The references are predominantly from Chinese sources, which is good. However, including more international research from the US, Europe, and other key horticultural regions would improve the article's scientific depth and broaden its impact.
Answer: We have alternated some Chinese references into English references.
Q3. Certain sections could benefit from some language refinement for clarity and readability. .
Answer: Among our authors team, Tahir Hassam is from Pakistan, and his official language is English, then we let him to polish the full text. We have asked him to respond to you in detail, and his response can be seen annex.
Q4: Minor methodological clarifications, particularly regarding statistical approaches and justification for treatment classifications, would also strengthen the manuscript.
Answer: We have modified the according section according to your guidance.
Q5.Some sentences are overly complex, and minor grammatical errors are present. Editing for conciseness and clarity would improve readability. Specific areas needing improvement include sentence structure in the introduction and results sections, where some descriptions are lengthy and difficult to follow.
Answer: We have modified the full text according to your guidance. One author Tahir Hassam from Pakistan respond to you in detail, and his response can be seen annex.
We feel very lucky that your guidance help us to improve the academic level of our thesis. Thank you again!
The following is Tahir Hassam's response to Comments on the Quality of English Language.
Dear Editor(s)
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. I am one of the authors of this paper. My name is Tahir Hassam, and I am from Pakistan. Since English is my official language, I was responsible for refining the manuscript's language. I have polished the manuscript as per your suggestions, and I hope this modified version meets your criteria.
Best regards!
Yours Sincerely,
Tahir Hassam
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have taken into account the reviewer's comments. The article can be published.The authors have taken into account the reviewer's comments. The article can be published.
