Identification and Registration of the Novel High-Rhizome-Yielding Variety Bharamputra-1 of Kaempferia galanga L.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for the manuscript (agriculture-2157815).
I have found some errors and typos. I have made a list of specific comments and suggestions for the authors.
1. Page 1, line 10; Page 2, line 62; Page 13, line 305… K. galanga……
2. Page 1, line 17… GC/MS…
3. Page 1, line 24; Page 11, line 279… endo-Borneol… (This word should be consistent with the table of result.)
4. Page 2, line 34… cekur, and kacholam…
5. Page 2, line 48…activities
6. Page 2, line 61; Page 13, line 305…Furthermore,
7. Page 2, line 66…antioxidant, and anthelmintic effects
8. Page 5, lines 135, 140 and 148; Page 6, lines 159; Page 13, lines 291 and 300… K. galanga
9. Page 7, line 196…In contrast,
10. Page 7, line 203…0.76, and 0.92, respectively, and..
11. Page 7, line 204…and 0.04, respectively, making…
12. Page 10, lines 257-258…was highest in Jorhat, Imphal and Gorigaon, and Lakhimijan, respectively.
13. Page 10, line 263…the other two varieties
14. Page 11, line 271…Imphal and Jorhat, respectively
15. Page 11, lines 292-293…p-methoxycinnamate (28–70%), trans..
16. Page 11, line 296…cultivar, which is responsible for several biological activities, is…
17. Plant identification details and the number of voucher specimen should be informed.
18. Since many abbreviations are used throughout the manuscript, a list of abbreviations should be provided.
19. Abbreviations are given under some tables (Tables 5 and 7), but they should be defined for all tables.
20. References should follow the journal reference format.
21. Some editing for English language is required throughout the manuscript.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments
I have found some errors and typos. I have made a list of specific comments and suggestions for the authors.
Comment 1. Page 1, line 10; Page 2, line 62; Page 13, line 305… K. galanga……
Response. Corrected
Comment 2. Page 1, line 17… GC/MS…
Response. Corrected
Comment 3. Page 1, line 24; Page 11, line 279… endo-Borneol… (This word should be consistent with the table of result.)
Response. Corrected
Comment 4. Page 2, line 34… cekur, and kacholam…
Response. Corrected
Comment 5. Page 2, line 48…activities
Response. Corrected
Comment 6. Page 2, line 61; Page 13, line 305…Furthermore,
Response. Corrected
Comment 7. Page 2, line 66…antioxidant, and anthelmintic effects
Response. Corrected
Comment 8. Page 5, lines 135, 140 and 148; Page 6, lines 159; Page 13, lines 291 and 300… K. galanga
Response. Corrected
Comment 9. Page 7, line 196…In contrast,
Response. Corrected
Comment 10. Page 7, line 203…0.76, and 0.92, respectively, and..
Response. Corrected
Comment 11. Page 7, line 204…and 0.04, respectively, making…
Response. Corrected
Comment 12. Page 10, lines 257-258…was highest in Jorhat, Imphal and Gorigaon, and Lakhimijan, respectively.
Response. Corrected
Comment 13. Page 10, line 263…the other two varieties
Response. Corrected
Comment 14. Page 11, line 271…Imphal and Jorhat, respectively
Response. Corrected
Comment 15. Page 11, lines 292-293…p-methoxycinnamate (28–70%), trans..
Response. Corrected
Comment 16. Page 11, line 296…cultivar, which is responsible for several biological activities, is…
Response. Corrected
Comment 17. Plant identification details and the number of voucher specimen should be informed.
Response. Mentioned in the MS in Materials and Methods section 2.1
Comment 18. Since many abbreviations are used throughout the manuscript, a list of abbreviations should be provided.
Response. A list of abbreviations were provided beneath the abstract
Comment 19. Abbreviations are given under some tables (Tables 5 and 7), but they should be defined for all tables.
Response. Abbreviations added in all the tables
Comment 20. References should follow the journal reference format.
Response. References formatted
Comment 21. Some editing for English language is required throughout the manuscript.
Response. Some editings were performed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The idea and the information provided in the manuscript are good. However, the content of the manuscript needs to be improved. The major comments are as follows and the others can be referred to in the comments box in the reviewed manuscript.
The title needs to be revised to reflect the content. I found a publication by the same author. Please comment on this publication
Bharamputra-1(IC0610826; INGR17081), an Aromatic ginger (Kaempferia galanga) Germplasm with High rhizome yield (10 tones/ha) and Dry Rhizome Recovery. High Essential Oil.
https://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:ijpgr&volume=32&issue=2&article=069
The introduction needs improvement. Please add previously reported chemical components, particularly the essential oil markers. The content should be split into 2 or 3 paragraphs.
Methodology. Some terminology needs to be corrected. Ie Chromatography
The species' name should be in italics. Some are written not. The authors mentioned standards injected into the GC. Need to include this in the method.
Please check the names of the compounds in Table 7. Italics where applicable. Some are highlighted in the reviewed manuscript.
Results and Discussion need improvement. Most of the time, the authors only report their results. No discussion on the justification of the data obtained. Need to be supported by previous related studies, LR. For detail, please refer to the reviewed manuscript.
The conclusion should be short and concise highlighting the findings and some recommendations.
Some sentence structure needs to be improvised. Check for grammatical errors. For detail and other comments and suggestions, please refer to the reviewed file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thankyou for your valuable comments. Kindly see the attachment for the revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Article is well defined. The result and methodology present a complete statistical analysis and adequate methods have been developed, as a recommendation, the conclusions must be extended, it seems a bast knowledge on the mentioned subjects and there are plenty results. Further, the abstract doesn´t reflex any forceful conclusion related to the investigation; it has a good introduction, since it includes an understandable definition of the variety of Kaempgeria galanga, as well as a good development, since it correctly addresses the explanation of the analysis.
Author Response
Thankyou for your valuable comments. Kindly see the attachment for the revisions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
