Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 22, 2024
Decision Letter - Taimoor Hassan Farooq, Editor

PONE-D-24-02845Utilization of organic-residues as potting media: Physico-chemical characteristics and their influence on vegetable productionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alam,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 07 2024 11:59PM. 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,

Taimoor Hassan Farooq

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. In this instance it seems there may be acceptable restrictions in place that prevent the public sharing of your minimal data. However, in line with our goal of ensuring long-term data availability to all interested researchers, PLOS’ Data Policy states that authors cannot be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-sharing-methods).

Data requests to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, helps guarantee long term stability and availability of data. Providing interested researchers with a durable point of contact ensures data will be accessible even if an author changes email addresses, institutions, or becomes unavailable to answer requests.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please also provide non-author contact information (phone/email/hyperlink) for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If no institutional body is available to respond to requests for your minimal data, please consider if there any institutional representatives who did not collaborate in the study, and are not listed as authors on the manuscript, who would be able to hold the data and respond to external requests for data access? If so, please provide their contact information (i.e., email address). Please also provide details on how you will ensure persistent or long-term data storage and availability.

3. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author "Zia-ul-Haq". 

4. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

Additional Editor Comments:

We invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

[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: No

**********

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: The article reports an innovative approach to utilize organic waste (pine needles, sugarcane bagasse, and farmyard manure) for making soilless potting media, which looks useful for organic food production. Basic analytical work and greenhouse experiments were undertaken precisely and reported with detailed methodology. Study results have been discussed to conclude that the technology bears commercial value. This manuscript merits publication in PLOS ONE after major improvements as suggested below:

1. I suggest the author remove abbreviated words from the abstract and revise it. Kindly use full names here.

2. Line 37-40: Kindly revise it. I found some inconsistencies in these sentences.

3. I suggest the author revise the keywords and it should be not the same as the title of the manuscript.

4. Line 81: Do not start the sentence with the reference. It looks awkward and not according to scientific standards.

5. At least mention three objectives and hypotheses of your current research and correlate them with the discussion section.

6. Check the references in the text and the reference section. Make sure it should be according to the journal format.

7. I suggest you some new references related to your study. Kindly cite them in your research article which will increase the worth of your article.

� Microplastics meet invasive plants: Unraveling the ecological hazards to agroecosystems

� Impacts of soil microplastics on the crops: A review. Applied soil ecology

� Harnessing soil carbon sequestration to address climate change challenges in agriculture

� Dynamic changes of soil nematodes between bulk and rhizosphere soils in the maize (Zea mays L.)/alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) intercropping system

� The detrimental effects of heavy metals on tributaries exert pressure on water quality, Crossocheilus aplocheilus, and the well-being of human health

� Influence of soil microplastic contamination and cadmium toxicity on the growth, physiology, and root growth traits of Triticum aestivum L.

8. The conclusion statement should be comprehensive. Kindly revise it.

9. The introduction looks lengthy and some of the statements are repeated, which should be avoided.

10. Also, include the detailed procedure for Total N determination.

Reviewer #2: MS Title: Utilization of organic-residues as potting media: Physico-chemical characteristics and their influence on vegetable production

General comments

This manuscript addresses an important issue by processing the waste pine needles and sugarcane bagasse along with farmyard manure to develop soilless potting media. Experiments are conducted appropriately, However, The manuscript lacks explicit presentation of control data for each experiment conducted by the authors. It is imperative to include control conditions where no organic matter was added to the soil to facilitate meaningful comparisons across different treatments. In order for the manuscript to undergo thorough review, it is essential that control data be provided for comparison. Without such data, meaningful evaluation of the experiments conducted would be compromised.

**********

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: Yes: Babar Iqbal

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.

Revision 1

Response to Reviewers’ Comments

Reference: PONE-D-24-02845

Title: Utilization of organic-residues as potting media: Physico-chemical characteristics and their influence on vegetable production

NOTE: Revised/added text as per review comments has been highlighted in the revised manuscript through track changes.

Authors acknowledge the comments by respectable reviewers and editor to improve the quality of the manuscript. Thank you very much for these efforts and for sparing valuable time.

Reviewer #1:

Query 1. I suggest the author remove abbreviated words from the abstract and revise it. Kindly use full names here.

Response: The abbreviation from the abstract has been removed and revised with full names as suggested.

Query 2. Line 37-40: Kindly revise it. I found some inconsistencies in these sentences.

Response: Sentences have been revised.

Query 3. I suggest the author revise the keywords and it should be not the same as the title of the manuscript.

Response: Needful has been done.

Query 4. Line 81: Do not start the sentence with the reference. It looks awkward and not according to scientific standards.

Response: Suggestion incorporated.

Query 5. At least mention three objectives and hypotheses of your current research and correlate them with the discussion section.

Response: Objectives and hypotheses of research have been included in the last paragraph of the introduction.

Query 6. Check the references in the text and the reference section. Make sure it should be according to the journal format.

Response: Needful has been done.

Query 7. I suggest you some new references related to your study. Kindly cite them in your research article which will increase the worth of your article.

Response: Suggestion incorporated.

Query 8. The conclusion statement should be comprehensive. Kindly revise it.

Response: Conclusion statement has been revised as per suggestion.

Query 9. The introduction looks lengthy and some of the statements are repeated, which should be avoided.

Response: Needful has been done throughout the introduction as per suggestion.

Query 10. Also, include the detailed procedure for Total N determination.

Response: A detailed procedure of total N determination has been added under the heading of chemical analysis in detail.

Reviewer #2:

Query 1. The manuscript lacks explicit presentation of control data for each experiment conducted by the authors. It is imperative to include control conditions where no organic matter was added to the soil to facilitate meaningful comparisons across different treatments. In order for the manuscript to undergo thorough review, it is essential that control data be provided for comparison. Without such data, meaningful evaluation of the experiments conducted would be compromised.

Response: We appreciate your insightful comments. Since our experimental setup was soilless, it may not be appropriate to include a soil control. Therefore, we compared the available organic residues (FM, PN, and SB) in all possible combinations to fulfill the requirement for a baseline comparison. Thank you for highlighting the significance of control data. We are dedicated to offering pertinent and enlightening data to support a comprehensive assessment of the paper.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Taimoor Hassan Farooq, Editor

PONE-D-24-02845R1Utilization of organic-residues as potting media: Physico-chemical characteristics and their influence on vegetable productionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alam, 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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 04 2024 11:59PM. 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,

Taimoor Hassan Farooq

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please focus on reviewer comments about figures.

[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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Your efforts in refining the manuscript have been duly recognized.

I suggest you consider incorporating more figures than tables into your manuscript. Figures not only enhance the visual appeal of your paper but also provide a succinct and informative way to present your findings. I suggest labeling the figures as "Fig. 1a, 1b, etc. for each type of parametrs" for clarity and consistency throughout the document. Additionally, I encourage you to include a study area figure in your paper. This section will provide essential context for your research, helping readers better understand the geographical or thematic scope of your study.

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #3: 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.

Revision 2

Response to Reviewers’ Comments

Reference: PONE-D-24-02845R1

Title: Utilization of organic-residues as potting media: Physico-chemical characteristics and their influence on vegetable production

NOTE: Revised text as per review comments has been highlighted in the revised manuscript through track changes.

The authors sincerely appreciate the insightful comments provided by the esteemed editor and reviewers, which have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of the manuscript. We are grateful for their valuable time and efforts dedicated to the review process. Thank you.

Reviewer #3:

Query. I suggest you consider incorporating more figures than tables into your manuscript. Figures not only enhance the visual appeal of your paper but also provide a succinct and informative way to present your findings. Additionally, I encourage you to include a study area figure in your paper.

Response: As per the suggestion of the respected reviewer Table 1 titled “Effect of substrate composition on spinach growth and yield attributes” (Plant height (cm), Fresh biomass (g plant−1), Dry biomass (g plant−1), Leaves plant−1) has been converted into figures to enhance the visual appeal. Moreover, the study area information has been provided in the materials and methods section (2.1. Site description), and the study area figure has been provided in Fig 1.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Taimoor Hassan Farooq, Editor

Utilization of organic-residues as potting media: Physico-chemical characteristics and their influence on vegetable production

PONE-D-24-02845R2

Dear authors,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Taimoor Hassan Farooq

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear authors,

I have gone through your manuscript in response to the reviewers' comments. After carefully reviewing the revisions made based on the reviewers' comments, I am pleased to say that your paper has met the standards and requirements for publication. The revisions addressed the concerns raised by the reviewers effectively, enhancing the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the manuscript.

I am writing to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Taimoor Hassan Farooq, Editor

PONE-D-24-02845R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Alam,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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 customercare@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

Taimoor Hassan Farooq

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .