Methyl Jasmonate Acts as a Crucial Player in Abiotic Stress Responses in Grape
, Ghulam Mustafa 4, Essam Elatafi 1,2, Lingfei Shangguan 1,2 and Jinggui Fang 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have revised the manuscript entitled “Methyl Jasmonate (MeJA) acts as a crucial player in abiotic stress responses in grape” (Manuscript ID: stresses-3674996).
The review is informative and covers a relevant and timely topic in plant science—namely, the role of methyl jasmonate (MeJA) in mitigating abiotic stress in grape production. The subject of the review is very important, as abiotic stresses are the major limiting factors in global grape cultivation.
The review is very well structured, and the chapters covered are relevant to the subject of the review.
Please use italics when writing the Latin names. Take this into account all over the manuscript.
The figures presented are explicit, relevant, and of high quality. Although writing a review is inherently challenging, the authors have effectively synthesized the available information, making the manuscript a useful reference for initiating future research experiments.
Additionally, I want to mention that the authors have accurately taken into account the journal’s requirements in writing this review.
In conclusion, I congratulate the authors for this work and have no hesitation in recommending it for publication in Stresses.
Kind regards,
Author Response
Dear Dr.
Editor in Chief
Stresses
Thank you for your email and for providing the reviewers' insightful comments on our manuscript," Methyl Jasmonate (MeJA) acts as a crucial player in abiotic stress responses in grape" Manuscript ID: 3674996. We appreciate the time and effort dedicated by both the reviewers and the editorial team to evaluating our work.
We have carefully addressed all the points raised and have made the necessary revisions as mentioned on this page and the next pages.
We believe these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript and have addressed all concerns raised. We hope the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication in the Journal of Stresses. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. Jinggui Fang
Responses to Reviewer 1
Comment: The review is very well structured, and the chapters covered are relevant to the subject of the review. The figures presented are explicit, relevant, and of high quality. Although writing a review is inherently challenging, the authors have effectively synthesized the available information, making the manuscript a useful reference for initiating future research experiments. In conclusion, I congratulate the authors for this work and have no hesitation in recommending it for publication in Stresses.
Reply: Thank you for your positive assessment. We are very pleased to hear that you found the manuscript satisfactory and that the work is now deemed suitable for publication.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript lacks some changes before publication. All observations are in the text.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Dr.
Editor in Chief
Stresses
Thank you for your email and for providing the reviewers' insightful comments on our manuscript," Methyl Jasmonate (MeJA) acts as a crucial player in abiotic stress responses in grape" Manuscript ID: 3674996. We appreciate the time and effort dedicated by both the reviewers and the editorial team to evaluating our work.
We have carefully addressed all the points raised and have made the necessary revisions as mentioned on this page and the next pages.
We believe these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript and have addressed all concerns raised. We hope the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication in the Journal of Stresses. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Prof. Dr. Jinggui Fang
Responses to Reviewer 2
Comment 1: The manuscript lacks some changes before publication. All observations are in the text.
Reply: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this critical feedback regarding the overall language, precision, and structure of the manuscript. We acknowledge that significant improvements are needed. In response, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the entire manuscript. This involved a thorough language edit by co-authors with expertise in scientific writing, to enhance clarity, ensure the use of appropriate scientific terminology, and improve logical flow throughout all sections. We believe these substantial revisions have significantly improved the overall quality and scientific merit of the manuscript.
Comment 2: Some places have references, and abbreviations are supposed to be added or removed in the text.
Reply: We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comments regarding the text. We have carefully revised this section to address the concerns about unnecessary information, lack of symmetry, and logical flow. These changes aim to better highlight the research objectives and the significance of our study, providing a clearer and more compelling rationale for the work undertaken.
Comment 3: Two tables have been advised to be added again in the manuscript.
Reply: We thank you for the reviewer’s comments regarding this and we have added two tables in the text for further clearance. We want to keep the references that have been added in the first round of the manuscript as they are related to our study and some new references have been added accordingly.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
