Next Article in Journal
Polyploid Induction and Karyotype Analysis of Dendrobium officinale
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparison of the Essential Oil Content, Constituents and Antioxidant Activity from Different Plant Parts during Development Stages of Wild Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.)
Previous Article in Journal
Thidiazuron Promoted Microspore Embryogenesis and Plant Regeneration in Curly Kale (Brassica oleracea L. convar. acephala var. sabellica)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Shade-Induced Effects on Essential Oil Yield, Chemical Profiling, and Biological Activity in Some Lamiaceae Plants Cultivated in Serbia
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Essential Oil Yield, Composition, and Antioxidant Activity in Two Umbel Maturity Stages of Wild Carrot (Daucus carota L. ssp. carota) from Montenegro

Horticulturae 2023, 9(3), 328; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030328
by Jelena Stanojević 1, Zoran S. Ilić 2,*, Ljiljana Stanojević 1, Lidija Milenković 2, Renata Kovač 3, Dragana Lalević 2, Ljubomir Šunić 2, Aleksandra Milenković 1 and Dragan Cvetković 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Horticulturae 2023, 9(3), 328; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030328
Submission received: 9 February 2023 / Revised: 22 February 2023 / Accepted: 24 February 2023 / Published: 2 March 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please open attach and recognised answer to Reviewer 1.  comments !!!!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The mansucript "Essential oil yield, composition, and antioxidant activity in two umbel maturity stages of wild carrot (Daucus carota L. ssp. carota) from Monte Negro" compare the yield, chemical composition, and antioxidant activity of the essential oil isolated from the wild carrot umbels with seeds in two maturity stages.

The mansucript is well written, presents information in a logical sequence, which makes it easy to follow. The introduction is well-structured and provides a comprehensive background on the research topic. Experimental section is complete and the discussion is detailed.

The conclusion section is a bit to short and could be expanded by discussing the implications of the results, and suggesting future research directions.

With regard to the presentation of the results the authors should revise the precission of data and specify uncertainties where missing (i.e. some entries in table 1, and in the text). In some cases too many significant figure were used (p. 10 73,31+/-4,46 --> 73+/-4; scavenging activities; composition of plants p7)

In the case of ANOVA specify wheter the ANOVA assumptions were met and if any transforamation of data was required/performed.

 

Author Response

Please open Attach and recognised answer to Reviewer 2. comments !!!!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have tried their best to improve the quality of the paper. The paper can be accepted but there are some english grammar mistakes which can be corrected during the proofreading of the article.

Author Response

we are improve some English grammar mistakes in new version of MS 

Back to TopTop