Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper uses extracts of peanut and walnut shells as raw materials for the antibacterial research of strawberries, which is somewhat novel. However, the content of this experimental design is relatively limited. After proving that it has a good effect, it is still necessary to analyze what components play a role in it. The possible mechanism of action can be carried out through experiments or intelligent simulation. It is suggested that a major overhaul be carried out to supplement the content on the discussion of the mechanism of action.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English expression is smooth, the language is relatively concise, and the meaning is expressed clearly.

Author Response

Please see the file uploaded.

Please note that this reviewer made the following comment regarding the quality of the English language: "The English expression is smooth, the language is relatively concise, and the meaning is expressed clearly".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for inviting me to evaluate the article titled ‘Peanut and pecan nut shell extracts reduced disease incidence and severity caused by grey mold in postharvest strawberries’. This study aimed to evaluate the antifungal activity of hexane (Hex) and methanolic (MeOH) extracts from peanut (P) and pecan nut (PN) shells against Botrytis cinerea in strawberry postharvest. And found MeOH-P could serve as an alternative source for developing a natural fungicide to reduce pathogen infection in strawberries. This article has innovative contributions, but the data do not fully support all conclusion. My suggestions as follow:

• Why are the concentrations used in vivo and ex vivo experiments different?
• The image quality is poor and unclear, especially in Figures 2 and 3.
• In Figure 3, What does the vertical axis represent? Clear labeling is required.
• In Figure 3, the data error is too large and requires more repetition. In addition, significance analysis is also needed.
• Please supplement SEM results to provide direct evidence of B. cinerea growth during the treatment in strawberries.

In summary, I recommend a reject.

Author Response

Please see the file uploaded

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Clarify why only hexane and methanol were used for extraction; explain why these solvents are sufficient.

• Better define the control groups and justify the use of water and DMSO.

• Include p-values, confidence intervals, and specify which statistical tests were used.

• Explain how the 4000 ppm concentration was chosen for ex vivo tests.

• Rewrite the abstract to clearly state the hypothesis and practical outcome, and avoid vague wording.

• Clarify how the data in Table 1 was calculated: are the values averages, single runs, or something else?

• State the number of replicates used and how you ensured reproducibility.

• Justify using only the ABTS assay for antioxidant activity or explain why it's sufficient.

• Provide evidence for the suggested issue with hexane extract solubility; don’t rely on speculation.

• Specify whether the extracts are fungistatic or fungicidal.

• Avoid vague explanations like “may be due to” and replace them with supported reasoning.

• Discuss how shell source, processing, or storage might affect extract composition.

• Explain how the disease severity scale was validated for your strawberry model.

• Reword the conclusion to focus on specific findings rather than general optimism.

• Justify testing only one fungal strain and discuss the limitations.

• Include more detail on how fungal identification was confirmed and quality-controlled.

• Fix inconsistent use of “positive” and “negative” control; currently, it’s confusing.

Author Response

Please see the file uploaded

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made revisions and provided answers to the questions I previously raised. Agree to publish

Author Response

Comment 1: The author has made revisions and answered the questions I raised. Agree to publish.

Response: Thank you very much for your time for reviewing this article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper can be accepted, and however, the figure 3 must be properly fixed, there is no x axis title, and its blurry, not high definition, no legends, it must be fixed.

Author Response

Comment 1: This paper can be accepted; however, Figure 3 must be properly fixed. There is no x-axis title, and it's blurry, not high-definition, and without legends. It must be fixed.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. Figure 3 has been revised accordingly: the x-axis now includes the title “Treatment”, the corresponding legend has been added, and we have made every effort to enhance its resolution to the highest possible quality. Please note that the figure was created in Excel and then exported to Photoshop for optimization.