The Global Metabolome Profiles of Four Varieties of Lonicera caerulea, Established via Tandem Mass Spectrometry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript entitled "Comparative geographic analysis of the metabolomic content of four different varieties of Lonicera caerulea by tandem mass spectrometry” has interesting idea, although the paper suffers from some serious weaknesses and in my opinion the manuscript is no acceptable for publication in this form. Below please find my comments.

Abstract – every time abstract should contains the most important information like most important findings and results. Some values are needed. The abstract should be reorganized.

Please make Key words more specific.

Authors must check and write correctly names of compounds.

In Introduction section: In my opinion the section is too brief. The Authors should try to make an effort to emphasize the importance of their studies. They can also dedicate the greater part of Introduction about the compounds they investigated. Please mention global distribution of the selected species.

Section Material and Methods: Which reference flora was used to identify the species?

One of the major concerns is the sample preparation. The methods employed in the study should be described in greater detail.

More details on the HPLC analysis is needed.

Discussion section - This part of each manuscript published is very important. In presented paper this section is poor and comprises too general explanations.

The conclusions should be integrated with more detailed results summarizing all the study and must reflect the innovation of this study and the perspectives.

Refrerences should be in accordance with the journal's guidelines.

English and style require a careful reorganization. There are a lot of language mistakes, grammatically and stylistically. English language should be substantially improved by a native English speaker.

English and style require a careful reorganization. There are a lot of language mistakes, grammatically and stylistically. English language should be substantially improved by a native English speaker.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

First of all, I would like to thank you very much for working on our article and correcting errors.
Our team of authors has changed the text as much as possible in response to critical comments made.
We would also like to note that a native English speaker worked on the text and corrected errors.
We have added chapters: Introduction, Materials and Methods, and Discussion.
We also significantly changed the Abstract of the article and Keywords.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the title of the article should be revised, as the study does not truly conduct a "Comparative Geographic Analysis" since it fails to investigate factors such as climate, geography, or soil composition, which are known to influence metabolomic content. Instead, the study appears to be a mere characterization of various varieties without considering these important geographical factors.

The introduction section of the article is notably brief and fails to explain the significance of the study adequately. Additionally, the objectives of the research are not clearly defined, leaving the readers uncertain about the primary goals of the study.

Lines 31 to 37 contain fragmented information and lack proper cohesion. The paragraph should be rewritten to ensure a smoother flow and better connectivity of ideas.

References are missing in several places: lines 40-42, 42-43, and 49-50. Proper citations should be added to support the claims and statements made in these sections.

Line 56 deserves more comprehensive exploration. It appears to be a critical point that needs further elaboration and discussion.

The article lacks clear objectives, which are essential for guiding the research and providing a clear framework for the study. The objectives should be clearly stated at the beginning of the article.

Figure 1 is poorly formatted and lacks clarity regarding the labels "A" and "B." The figure should be revised and labeled more clearly to enhance its comprehensibility.

The discussion section of the article is inadequate and requires substantial improvement. It should delve deeper into the findings, their implications, and the broader context of the research. Additionally, the article contains an excessive number of figures and tables in comparison to the textual content, leading to confusion. Tables and figures that do not significantly contribute to the data analysis should be relocated to supplementary materials, streamlining the main text for better readability.

This scientific article requires significant revisions to enhance its clarity, coherence, and overall quality. Addressing the issues mentioned above will improve the article's scientific rigor and make it more informative and reader-friendly.

Must be improved

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

First of all, I would like to thank you very much for working on our article and correcting errors.
Our team of authors has changed the text as much as possible in response to critical comments made.
We would also like to note that a native English speaker worked on the text and corrected errors.
We have added chapters: Introduction, Materials and Methods, and Discussion.
We also significantly changed the Abstract of the article and Keywords.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did not follow my suggestion to remove some of the images or tables for supplementary material. For instance, what is the relevance of Figure 3? Although it displays the chemical structure of some identified polyphenols in extracts of L. caerulea, it does not contribute significantly to the manuscript. It should either be moved to supplementary material or eliminated.

Regarding the rest of the comments, the authors have implemented my suggestions. The manuscript has been improved and is now ready for publication.