All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The authors have addressed all concerns of reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
My comments have been properly addressed. I have no further questions.
My comments have been properly addressed. I have no further questions.
My comments have been properly addressed. I have no further questions.
My previous concerns are addressed.
No comment.
The authors made corrections.
Reviewers have advised minor revisions within the manuscript. Kindly follow the below-given comments of the reviewers and revise the manuscript accordingly.
Reviewer 1 has suggested that you cite specific references. You are welcome to add it/them if you believe they are relevant. However, you are not required to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
Please see the pdf attached.
Please see the pdf attached.
Please see the pdf attached.
Please see the pdf attached.
The article includes a sufficient introduction and background and the bibliography is duly referenced.
The article has a suggested structure and format. As well as the tables and figures are clear and properly described.
It is necessary to make the importance of the study clearer, as well as its originality or advantages/differences with respect to other similar studies carried out, especially in the same study area.
Bacteria were isolated from the rhizosphere of wheat plants from an area with high salinity content.
The methods described in detail so that another researcher can reproduce them.
Although the study is not new in terms of its purpose, which is the isolation and characterization of pgpr with agrobiotechnological potential, it is different from many other studies published even in the same area of Pakistan, due to the high salinity, in which the bacteria are isolated from the same crop where they are intended to be used, which gives them a certain adaptive advantage. Therefore, I believe that it is a relevant study due to the importance of wheat cultivation and the salinity conditions of the study site.
1. It is necessary to make the importance of the study clearer, as well as its originality or advantages/differences with respect to other similar studies carried out, especially in the same study area.
2. It is important to mention if any tests were performed to rule out the possible pathogenicity of the isolated bacteria, especially those identified as B. cereus. If they have not been carried out, it is necessary to mention it in the discussion and highlight the importance of carrying out this type of test/study.
1 The review of related work is not sufficiently thorough and not sufficiently specific. The authors should cite the latest references if appropriate.
2 The authors should explain some abbreviations when they first appear in the manuscript, such as PGPR in L86 rather than L88 and OD in L138.
no comment
1 The report/statement in L290-L291 seems not to be correct.
2 The report/statement in L304-L306 seems not to be correct.
3 The report/statement in L332-L335 seems not to be correct.
4 The report/statement in L343-L347 seems not to be correct.
5 The authors should provide information regarding sample size for their analysis.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.