Cow dung putrefaction via vermicomposting using Eisenia fetida and its influence on seed sprouting and vegetative growth of Viola wittrockiana (pansy)

Irsa Shafique; Saiqa Andleeb; Farrukh Naeem; Shaukat Ali; Tauseef Tabassam; Tariq Sultan; Mohammad Almas Abbasi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279828

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 27, 2022
7 Jun 2022 Decision Letter - Sartaj Ahmad Bhat, Editor PONE-D-22-12324Cow dung putrefaction via vermicomposting using Esinea fetida and its impact on seed germination and plant growth parameters of Viola wittrockiana (pansy)PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Saiqa, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: This manuscript discusses the impact of vermicompost on seed germination, seedlings, and vegetative growth parameters on plants. There are some serious concerns and points which must be improved. The manuscript fails to identify clearly major achievements in the topic in recent years, major research questions and future research needs. Unfortunately, the information provided in introduction and methodology is insufficient to properly interpret the study. In any case, the Discussion Section must be considerably improved, as it is too general. The manuscript also needs language editing, since it is difficult to understand what the authors are trying to convey in many places. I hope that my comments will help you to improve the quality of this study. Title: Check the spelling of Esinea fetida. It should be Eisenia fetida Abstract: Abstract should be rewritten by detailing the aim and concept of the paper. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. Introduction: Very general and need to be elaborative to explore the actual philosophy to design the experiment. The introduction is insufficient to provide the state of the art in the topic. Hypothesis should be given. How this work is different from the available data? The introduction part needs further improvement. The introduction of the paper must be extended and reformulated in order to provide a more comprehensive approach. New references are missing in the introduction and discussion. Add 2018-2022 references accordingly Objectives of the present study is poorly written. In the last paragraph of the introduction, write the specific objectives of this work clearly, as points (i)..... (ii)....(iii) ......and (iv). Results and Discussion: The manuscript does not provide interesting and technically sound discussion; it would be better to use more recent references in discussion. Authors are suggested to add discussion by explaining trends in the obtained results along with the possible mechanisms behind the trends. Authors are suggested to draw major inferences/primary conclusions followed by the secondary conclusions/ recommendations reached through the critical analysis/ investigation of the study. I recommend you to revise the manuscript after considering these points along with the reviewer’s comments.Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact. For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by July 15. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sartaj Ahmad Bhat, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author. - http://jdguez.webs.uvigo.es/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/the-use-of-vermicompost.pdf - https://revistas.inia.es/index.php/sjar/article/view/1412 - https://jast-journal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40543-017-0112-2?optIn=false - https://www.blackdiamondvermicompost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/EFFECTS-OF-VERMICOMPOSTS-ON-PLANT-GROWTH.pdf - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansy - https://moam.info/viola-wittrockiana-gams_5c64e2a7097c471b788b459f.html - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33490670/ - http://ijsrm.humanjournals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/8.Sumathi-S-Pawlin-Vasanthi-Joseph.pdf - https://ijcmas.com/7-10-2018/Anil%20Kumar,%20et%20al.pdf - https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/4/1205/html -http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/47/12/1722.full We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications. Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work. We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough. 3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author* 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, Your manuscript need significant improvement particularly in discussion section to be more compact and reduce the length. Simply delete general or repeated or not necessary sentences and texts. Reviewer #2: The manuscript title "Cow dung putrefaction via vermicomposting using Esinea fetida and its impact on seed germination and plant growth parameters of Viola wittrockiana (pansy)" was written very well. However, authors need to address to the review comments for improving the quality of the manuscript prior to the publication process. 1. Recent references should be incorporated in both introduction and discussion part 2. Biomass and reproduction data of earthworm is missing. 3. Reproduction and growth rate should be presented in tabular or graphical form 4. Grammar and spelling mistakes should be considered/removed in revised manuscript 5. conclusion could be improved 6. Table 1: Need to mention unit of EC 7. Table 2: .Need to mention the unit of germination speed 8.Please mention the representation of “bbb” in Statistical icons ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-12324.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279828.r001
Revision 1
14 Jul 2022 Author Response ACADEMIC EDITOR: This manuscript discusses the impact of vermicompost on seed germination, seedlings, and vegetative growth parameters on plants. There are some serious concerns and points which must be improved. The manuscript fails to identify clearly major achievements in the topic in recent years, major research questions and future research needs. Unfortunately, the information provided in introduction and methodology is insufficient to properly interpret the study. In any case, the Discussion Section must be considerably improved, as it is too general. The manuscript also needs language editing, since it is difficult to understand what the authors are trying to convey in many places. I hope that my comments will help you to improve the quality of this study. Title: Check the spelling of Esinea fetida. It should be Eisenia fetida Has been corrected Abstract: Abstract should be rewritten by detailing the aim and concept of the paper. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. Has been modified Introduction: Very general and need to be elaborative to explore the actual philosophy to design the experiment. The introduction is insufficient to provide the state of the art in the topic. Hypothesis should be given. How this work is different from the available data? The introduction part needs further improvement. The introduction of the paper must be extended and reformulated in order to provide a more comprehensive approach. New references are missing in the introduction and discussion. Add 2018-2022 references accordingly Objectives of the present study is poorly written. In the last paragraph of the introduction, write the specific objectives of this work clearly, as points (i)..... (ii)....(iii) ......and (iv). Introduction has been modified along with recent references. Results and Discussion: The manuscript does not provide interesting and technically sound discussion; it would be better to use more recent references in discussion. Authors are suggested to add discussion by explaining trends in the obtained results along with the possible mechanisms behind the trends. Authors are suggested to draw major inferences/primary conclusions followed by the secondary conclusions/ recommendations reached through the critical analysis/ investigation of the study. Manuscript has been modified along with recent references. ________________________________________ 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, Your manuscript need significant improvement particularly in discussion section to be more compact and reduce the length. Simply delete general or repeated or not necessary sentences and texts. Thanks for the suggestions to improve the quality of manuscript. All data have been improved in revised manuscript. Repeated data has been removed. Reviewer #2: The manuscript title "Cow dung putrefaction via vermicomposting using Esinea fetida and its impact on seed germination and plant growth parameters of Viola wittrockiana (pansy)" was written very well. However, authors need to address to the review comments for improving the quality of the manuscript prior to the publication process. Thanks for the positive recommendations. 1. Recent references should be incorporated in both introduction and discussion part Has been incorporated 2. Biomass and reproduction data of earthworm is missing. Has been incorporated 3. Reproduction and growth rate should be presented in tabular or graphical form Has been presented as figure 1 4. Grammar and spelling mistakes should be considered/removed in revised manuscript Has been removed 5. conclusion could be improved Has been improved 6. Table 1: Need to mention unit of EC Has been mentioned 7. Table 2: Need to mention the unit of germination speed Has been mentioned 8.Please mention the representation of “bbb” in Statistical icons Has been mentioned in statistical analysis section Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response to reviewers.doc* https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279828.r002
22 Sep 2022 Decision Letter - Sartaj Ahmad Bhat, Editor PONE-D-22-12324R1Cow dung putrefaction via vermicomposting using Eisenia fetida and its influence on seed sprouting and vegetative growth of Viola wittrockiana (pansy)PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Saiqa, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: The manuscript still needs some revisions. There are several uses of unclear language, highly general statements, and allusions to trends in the data without specific support. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by November 5. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript' If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sartaj Ahmad Bhat, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #4: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Partly ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ******** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed the comments and the manuscript has been improved. One minor comment: Please don't use double sign for showing statistical significance of the data. Simply '' or '' is enough and generally used in literature. There is no need for other symbols. Reviewer #4: The authors have addressed the review suggestions to a certain extent; yet the effort is inadequate. Moreover, cow dung itself is a source of bioavailable nutrients because it decomposes quickly. Please porvide scientific explanation, why putrefaction of cow dung is nececcasry. Also, the introduction must discuss the recent knowledge on vermicomposting. Some papers which are published in recent years should be dicussed and cited, for example, "Epigenetic regulations enhance adaptability and valorization efficiency in Eisenia fetida and Eudrilus eugeniae during vermicomposting of textile sludge: Insights on repair mechanisms of metal-induced genetic damage and oxidative stress. Bioresource Technology (Elsevier), 2022, 345: 126493" "Appraisal of lignocellusoic biomass degrading potential of three earthworm species using vermireactor mediated with spent mushroom substrate: Compost quality, crystallinity, and microbial community structural analysis. Science of the Total Environment, (2019), doi: " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135215" "Application of drum compost and vermicompost to improve soil health, growth, and yield parameters for tomato and cabbage plants. Journal of Environmental Management (Elsevier), (2017), 200: 243-252" "Vermicompost and farm yard manure improves food quality, anti-oxidant and antibacterial potential of Cajanus cajan (L, Mill sp.) leaves. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture (Wiley) (2016) 97: 956–966" ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #3: No Reviewer #4: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279828.r003
Revision 2
27 Sep 2022 Author Response Response to Reviewers Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed the comments and the manuscript has been improved. One minor comment: Please don't use double sign for showing statistical significance of the data. Simply '' or '*' is enough and generally used in literature. There is no need for other symbols. Thanks for the endorsement and recommendation. In the current study authors used two different symbols to represent the differences among the treatments and control groups i.e. ‘’ represents a significant change among Tcc and VC-treated groups and ‘¥’ represents a significant change among To and VC-treated groups. Otherwise we don’t need to use these symbols. Reviewer #4: The authors have addressed the review suggestions to a certain extent; yet the effort is inadequate. Moreover, cow dung itself is a source of bioavailable nutrients because it decomposes quickly. Please provide scientific explanation, why putrefaction of cow dung is nececcasry. Thanks for the comments. You are absolutely right that cow dung is itself is a source of bioavailable nutrients but its decomposition is necessary due to following reasons. Manure of cow/horse/chicken is not only too much hot but also contain too high nitrogen contents which is not possible for plants to tolerate. Both temperature and excess nitrogen burns the plants. Secondly, Excess of methane generation and release of toxic gases pollute the environment. Also, the introduction must discuss the recent knowledge on vermicomposting. Some papers which are published in recent years should be dicussed and cited, for example, "Epigenetic regulations enhance adaptability and valorization efficiency in Eisenia fetida and Eudrilus eugeniae during vermicomposting of textile sludge: Insights on repair mechanisms of metal-induced genetic damage and oxidative stress. Bioresource Technology (Elsevier), 2022, 345: 126493" "Appraisal of lignocellusoic biomass degrading potential of three earthworm species using vermireactor mediated with spent mushroom substrate: Compost quality, crystallinity, and microbial community structural analysis. Science of the Total Environment, (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135215" "Application of drum compost and vermicompost to improve soil health, growth, and yield parameters for tomato and cabbage plants. Journal of Environmental Management (Elsevier), (2017), 200: 243-252" "Vermicompost and farm yard manure improves food quality, anti-oxidant and antibacterial potential of Cajanus cajan (L, Mill sp.) leaves. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture (Wiley) (2016) 97: 956–966" Thanks for the suggestions. All references have been incorporated in revised manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response 2.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279828.r004
15 Dec 2022 Decision Letter - Sartaj Ahmad Bhat, Editor Cow dung putrefaction via vermicomposting using Eisenia fetida and its influence on seed sprouting and vegetative growth of Viola wittrockiana (pansy) PONE-D-22-12324R2 Dear Dr. Saiqa, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Sartaj Ahmad Bhat, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #4: (No Response) ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #4: The paper has been adequately improved by addressing all the comments. I congratulate the authors for their effort. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #4: Yes: Satya Sundar Bhattacharya ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279828.r005
Formally Accepted
6 Jan 2023 Acceptance Letter - Sartaj Ahmad Bhat, Editor PONE-D-22-12324R2 Cow dung putrefaction via vermicomposting using Eisenia fetida and its influence on seed sprouting and vegetative growth of Viola wittrockiana (pansy) Dear Dr. Andleeb: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Sartaj Ahmad Bhat Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279828.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .