-->PONE-D-26-00818-->-->Multivariate Analysis for Agro-Morphological and Quality Traits in Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Genotypes in Eastern Ethiopia-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Dama,

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 Mar 20 2026 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.. 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 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 . 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,

Sumit Jangra, 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. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[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.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: No

**********

-->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 MS Multivariate Analysis for Agro-Morphological and Quality Traits in Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Genotypes in Eastern Ethiopia needs extensive correction and improvement. Pl see the attachment.

Reviewer #2: • The manuscript addresses an important topic in crop improvement, namely the assessment of genetic variability in groundnut using multivariate approaches. The use of principal component analysis, clustering, and genetic distance to characterize diversity among genotypes is relevant and appropriate for breeding-oriented research. The experimental design (simple lattice) and the inclusion of multiple agronomic and quality traits are also strengths of the manuscript.

• However, in its current form, the manuscript suffers from major weaknesses related to scientific presentation, clarity of writing, and overall coherence. Substantial revision is required before it can be considered for publication.

• The manuscript requires thorough editing by a fluent English speaker or a professional language editing service before resubmission, as it contains pervasive grammatical errors, unclear sentences, and inappropriate wording that significantly affect readability and professionalism. Examples include incorrect phrases such as “Those 36 genotypes were grouped…”, “writing curative data analysis…”, “We are highly acknowledged…”, and “Declaration of Computing Interest.” These issues occur throughout the manuscript (Abstract, Discussion, Author Contributions, Acknowledgments, etc.).

• The Abstract is overly descriptive and contains grammatical problems, redundant wording, and weak articulation of novelty and implications. The opening sentence reads more like a textbook-style introduction than a research-driven statement. Although the findings report statistical outputs (e.g., PCA variance, clusters), they do not explain why these results matter biologically. The abstract should be rewritten to include: a clear background (1–2 sentences), specific objective, brief methodology, concise key results, and practical implications for breeding.

• The Introduction provides relevant background but is overly descriptive, poorly structured, and lacks a clearly articulated research gap. Excessive textbook-level information should be condensed, and the narrative reorganized to progress logically from general context to specific problem. For example, there is poor logical flow between paragraphs: the Introduction jumps between global production, nutrition, constraints, genetics, and diversity without a smooth conceptual progression. A stronger structure would be: brief importance of groundnut, challenges in Ethiopia, importance of genetic variability for improvement, knowledge gap in Ethiopian germplasm, and purpose of the current study.

• The final paragraph (e.g., “Accordingly, the study was used multivariate analysis to assess…”) attempts to present the aim, but the language is grammatically weak and scientifically imprecise, which weakens the academic tone. The objective should be rewritten clearly and concisely, ideally in one or two strong sentences. For example:

“Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess genetic variability among 36 groundnut genotypes using agro-morphological and quality traits through multivariate analyses (PCA, clustering, and genetic distance) in eastern Ethiopia.”

In addition, citation accuracy and relevance must be carefully reviewed.

• Several equations are poorly formatted and should be standardized.

• The Results and Discussion sections are overly descriptive and weakly analytical. In the Discussion, there is limited critical interpretation of why certain traits contributed strongly to PC1 and PC2, what the observed clustering implies for adaptation, breeding strategy, or germplasm structure, and why particular genotypes (e.g., Gv3, Gv17, Gv28) are highly divergent.

• The Discussion should be strengthened by interpreting the PCA results biologically rather than only statistically, linking the findings to breeding objectives in Ethiopia, and explaining how the results advance existing knowledge rather than merely confirming previous studies.

• The Author Contributions statement should be rewritten for clarity and professionalism.

• The Acknowledgments section requires grammatical correction.

• Keywords should avoid redundancy with the title and be more specific.

• The manuscript contains several inconsistencies between in-text citations and the reference list. Key cited works (e.g., Amare et al., 2017; Niveditha et al., 2016; Chahal & Gosal, 2002; Yan & Tinker, 2005) are missing from the reference list. Conversely, some references listed are not cited in the text. In addition, discrepancies exist in publication years (e.g., FAOSTAT cited as 2022 in-text but listed as 2020 in the references; SAS cited as 2000 in-text but listed as 2004 in the reference list). These issues must be carefully corrected to meet journal standards.

**********

-->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 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 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Arachis comments.docx

Multivariate Analysis for Agro-Morphological and Quality Traits in Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Genotypes in Eastern Ethiopia

PONE-D-26-00818R1

Dear Dr. Dama,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support..

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,

Sumit Jangra, 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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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.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

**********

-->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 #2: (No Response)

**********

-->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: The authors have incorporated all the suggestions; therefore, the manuscript may be considered for publication. However, some latest findings in discussion section still missing, During final proofreading, the authors must add below mentioned lateset findinding in discussion to strength the discussion part particularly correlation and PCA and also follow the journal’s formatting guidelines and ensure that botanical names are written in italics.

1. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2025.2610022

2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-025-06335-x

3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2026.123162

4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-025-06985-x

5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-49091-4

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->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 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes:Dr Lalu Prasad Yadav, Senior Scientist, ICAR-CIAH, Bikaner, IndiaDr Lalu Prasad Yadav, Senior Scientist, ICAR-CIAH, Bikaner, India

Reviewer #2: No

**********