Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 28, 2021
Decision Letter - Saqib Bashir, Editor

PONE-D-21-21085

Ameliorating the Cr toxicity for rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) growth and biomass through the foliar application of micronutrients chelation with amino acids grown in tannery wastewater

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Saleem,

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:

  1. It’s very strange for me, why authors have irrigated the soil with tannery wastewater and why they did not collect wastewater irrigated soil. If wastewater is harmful then soil should be taken where this harmful effluent discharged.
  2. Please re-write the line number 35-36.
  3. Please check the line number 45, is this correct sentence.
  4. Authors need to add some key findings in your abstract section.
  5. Please use PTEs instead of heavy metals throughout the manuscript.
  6. L54-56. How these agricultural practices can contribute metals toxicity in arable lands?.
  7. L65- Revise production of industrial section???
  8. Please remove spaces b/w words in throughout the manuscript.
  9. Authors did experiment about wastewater but I could not found any significant and relevant information in the introduction section.
  10. Article is not properly formatted according to the journal format. E.g., headings font size??
  11. L133- Total organic content of the….. what does it mean??
  12. How temperature was maintained 25 °C and 10 °C average temperature of day and night.???????
  13. L152-156. Please re-write these sentences.
  14. Please check the texts in all figures (especially on y-axis)
  15. Check the superscript and subscript throughout the manuscript.
  16. Its very strange for me that Cr permissible limit is 0.10 and wastewater has just 4
  17. If wastewater has Cr conc… around 4 then how it reaches to 160 in figure 5 E.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 2021 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: http://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,

Saqib Bashir

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 stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“The publication of the present work is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant no. 2017YFC0504704) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51669034, 41761068, 51809224)”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Funding section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“YES”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf."

3. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files table at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

i have read this manuscript very carefully and evaluted from the neutral reviewers. All they have suggested the major revision. Authors needs to revise this current version very carefully .

1- It’s very strange for me, why authors have irrigated the soil with tannery wastewater and why they did not collect wastewater irrigated soil. If wastewater is harmful then soil should be taken where this harmful effluent discharged.

2- Please re-write the line number 35-36.

3- Please check the line number 45, is this correct sentence.

4- Authors need to add some key findings in your abstract section.

5- Please use PTEs instead of heavy metals throughout the manuscript.

6- L54-56. How these agricultural practices can contribute metals toxicity in arable lands?.

7- L65- Revise production of industrial section???

8- Please remove spaces b/w words in throughout the manuscript.

9- Authors did experiment about wastewater but I could not found any significant and relevant information in the introduction section.

10- Article is not properly formatted according to the journal format. E.g., headings font size??

11- L133- Total organic content of the….. what does it mean??

12- How temperature was maintained 25 °C and 10 °C average temperature of day and night.???????

13- L152-156. Please re-write these sentences.

14- Please check the texts in all figures (especially on y-axis)

15- Check the superscript and subscript throughout the manuscript.

16- Its very strange for me that Cr permissible limit is 0.10 and wastewater has just 4

17- If wastewater has Cr conc… around 4 then how it reaches to 160 in figure 5 E.

[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: Partly

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: No

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: Write up is very poor (view comment in attachment). Treatment plan is ambiguous. Figures are not self-explanatory, A, B & C etc. are not explained in description.

Results are not properly presented. Interpretation is not clear. Discussion section must be re-written before re-submission.

Conclusion section must be linked with the quantified results. General statements commonly mislead the readers.

Over all, manuscript is not properly managed. English language is very poor. There are lot of language and grammar mistakes.

Reviewer #2: Respected Editor,

Thanks for choosing me a potential reviewer for the manuscript entitled “Ameliorating the Cr toxicity for rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) growth and biomass through the foliar application of micronutrients chelation with amino acids grown in tannery wastewater” from Zaheer et al. I have read the manuscript carefully and found much novelty in it. In addition, in this research work Authors try to overcome Cr toxicity from wastewater using the application of Zn and Fe-lys and measured various growth, chlorophyll, photosynthesis, oxidative stress and response of antioxidants, nutrients and Cr uptake from different parts of the plants were measured. Although, it’s a novel approach to use Zn or Fe-lys and a cheap method for the developing countries such as Pakistan. Hence, I want to add some suggestions which can increase the readership for the paper. Few suggestions and recommendations are as follow:

On the title: Please correct the scientific name of the plant.

On the abstract: Please add some introductive sentences in the beginning of the abstract and also add some future recommendation in the last of the abstract section. In addition, write your parameters such as oxidative stress or antioxidants, at least once in this part.

On the keywords: These words should not repeat in the title.

On the Introduction: Please cite some latest articles and also try to cite multiple references in each sentence. Also revise some of the minor mistakes such as rapeseed, chromium or ROS. In addition, write your objectives critically.

On the Materials and methods: Please write your protocols in details, also add chemical names and complete description of your analysis.

On the Results and discussions: Please write some details in the legends of the figures and revise some of the results in more descriptive manners. Also revise some sentences about antioxidant capacity in the discussion section.

On the conclusion: Please write at least one future recommendations from your study.

Thanks, and regards

**********

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-21-21085_reviewer.pdf
Revision 1

Reviewer’s comments

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

1. It’s very strange for me, why authors have irrigated the soil with tannery wastewater and why they did not collect wastewater irrigated soil. If wastewater is harmful then soil should be taken where this harmful effluent discharged.

Response: Respected reviewer, in this study we have used natural soil and collected the wastewater from Kasur District, where the industries directly discharged the wastewater and many formers are using this wastewater to irrigated their land. It’s not strange for anyone, and It’s a normal study and we already published 100 of literatures on this idea. This study will help the formers to learn about the use of wastewater in their irrigated land. And we have noticed from the study that irrigated wastewater is not helpful for the farmer so that we have used the artificial chemical i.e., micro-chelation with amino acids to overcome the Cr toxicity in the plants by minimizing its concentration. This is the main novelty of our study.

2. Please re-write the line number 35-36.

Response: Respected reviewer, done.

3. Please check the line number 45, is this correct sentence.

Response: Respected reviewer, corrected.

4. Authors need to add some key findings in your abstract section.

Response: Respected reviewer, I have re-written the results in the abstract section and re-written most of the key results. Although, I have not written in the form of percentage as we have measured 26 parameters in this study, this will make abstract more complex and difficult for the readers to understand. Firstly, Cr toxicity was decreased growth parameters then application of amino chelation increased these parameters. This is difficult to write in abstract section. Moreover, we have written the details story in the “Results” section. Thanks

5. Please use PTEs instead of heavy metals throughout the manuscript.

Response: Respected reviewer, corrected throughout the MS.

6. L54-56. How these agricultural practices can contribute metals toxicity in arable lands?

Response: Respected reviewer, I have corrected this sentence, although the reason behind this mechanism is that various agricultural practices such as fertilization have many nutrients like Cu, Cd or Fe which required by plants in minute quantity, so that continuous fertilization can cause metal contamination in the soil.

7. L65- Revise production of industrial section???

Response: Respected reviewer, I have rephrased these sentences.

8. Please remove spaces b/w words in throughout the manuscript.

Response: Respected reviewer, I have revised the MS and corrected it accordingly.

9. Authors did experiment about wastewater but I could not found any significant and relevant information in the introduction section.

Response: Respected reviewer, I have added all relevant information about wastewater in this section such as effect on plants, it’s amount and many other general information.

10. Article is not properly formatted according to the journal format. E.g., headings font size??

Response: Respected reviewer, I have revised it according to the journal’s format.

11. L133- Total organic content of the….. what does it mean??

Response: Respected reviewer, all matter is present in Table 1S, and we are discussing about it’s protocol. For better concern please see the Table 1S.

12. How temperature was maintained 25 °C and 10 °C average temperature of day and night.???????

Response: Respected reviewer, the source was not available for this information. I have removed this and replace it with all relevant details of green house like, wires, open air experiment, what we will do during rain. Et.,

13. L152-156. Please re-write these sentences.

Response: Respected reviewer, done.

14. Please check the texts in all figures (especially on y-axis)

Response: Respected reviewer, I have checked it, looks satisfactory for me, and also we added PCA for this study for better understanding the results.

15. Check the superscript and subscript throughout the manuscript.

Response: Respected reviewer, I have cross checked throughout the MS.

16. Its very strange for me that Cr permissible limit is 0.10 and wastewater has just 4

Response: Respected reviewer, this is showing that wastewater contains too high amount of Cr in it compared to other heavy metals. For example: this study is based on Cr stress if it will be Zn or Cd stress then their values will be higher or at least close to the permissible limit. We can see only Cr have too much high quality in it wastewater. Thanks for understanding.

17. If wastewater has Cr conc… around 4 then how it reaches to 160 in figure 5 E.

Response: Respected reviewer, for this please see the M&M section, we have supplied wastewater at different intervals of the experiment, not only one time. For the response of your comments I have used blue colour in the text.

Reviewer #1

Write up is very poor (view comment in attachment). Treatment plan is ambiguous. Figures are not self-explanatory, A, B & C etc. are not explained in description.

Results are not properly presented. Interpretation is not clear. Discussion section must be re-written before re-submission.

Conclusion section must be linked with the quantified results. General statements commonly mislead the readers.

Over all, manuscript is not properly managed. English language is very poor. There are lot of language and grammar mistakes.

Response: Respected reviewer, thanks for your valuable suggestions and time. I have revised my whole manuscript and also reviewed by corresponding author and we have improved it according to your suggestion. Almost all the results have re-written and for better understanding of our results we have added PCA and heat-map. The manuscript is cross-checked and reduced all grammar mistakes especially Brassica napus (scientific name of the crop). All legend of the figures are revised and written in the details even we added the statistical analysis and treatments. In addition, treatments also revised and written in the form of numbered. We also do hard work on discussion section and all introductive sentences are removed and just focuses on main findings with the mechanism. Although, we did not know the dimension of the pots but pots have capacity of 5 kg of soil which is mention in the text. Also, we have revised the conclusion and read the MS many times to make sure that no grammar or spell or scientific error. Thanks for your time and suggestions. For the response of your comments, I have used Red colour in the MS.

Reviewer #2

Respected Editor,

Thanks for choosing me a potential reviewer for the manuscript entitled “Ameliorating the Cr toxicity for rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) growth and biomass through the foliar application of micronutrients chelation with amino acids grown in tannery wastewater” from Zaheer et al. I have read the manuscript carefully and found much novelty in it. In addition, in this research work Authors try to overcome Cr toxicity from wastewater using the application of Zn and Fe-lys and measured various growth, chlorophyll, photosynthesis, oxidative stress and response of antioxidants, nutrients and Cr uptake from different parts of the plants were measured. Although, it’s a novel approach to use Zn or Fe-lys and a cheap method for the developing countries such as Pakistan. Hence, I want to add some suggestions which can increase the readership for the paper. Few suggestions and recommendations are as follow:

On the title: Please correct the scientific name of the plant.

Response: Respected reviewer, corrected.

On the abstract: Please add some introductive sentences in the beginning of the abstract and also add some future recommendation in the last of the abstract section. In addition, write your parameters such as oxidative stress or antioxidants, at least once in this part.

Response: Respected reviewer, we have added an introductive sentence in the beginning and also added a conclusion sentence in the end of the abstract section. Also we added antioxidants in this section.

On the keywords: These words should not repeat in the title.

Response: Respected reviewer, corrected.

On the Introduction: Please cite some latest articles and also try to cite multiple references in each sentence. Also revise some of the minor mistakes such as rapeseed, chromium or ROS. In addition, write your objectives critically.

Response: Respected reviewer, I have made all the changes according to your suggestions.

On the Materials and methods: Please write your protocols in details, also add chemical names and complete description of your analysis.

Response: Respected reviewer, added all relevant information.

On the Results and discussions: Please write some details in the legends of the figures and revise some of the results in more descriptive manners. Also revise some sentences about antioxidant capacity in the discussion section.

Response: Respected reviewer, all relevant information is added.

On the conclusion: Please write at least one future recommendations from your study.

Thanks, and regards

Response: Respected reviewer, already added by the suggestion of another reviewer. For the response of your comments, I have used green colour in the text.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewers comments.docx
Decision Letter - Saqib Bashir, Editor

PONE-D-21-21085R1Combined Application of Zinc and Iron-Lysine on Morpho-Physiological Traits, Antioxidant Capacity and Chromium Uptake in Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) Under Different Levels of Tannery WastewaterPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Saleem,

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:please improve grammatical mistakes in the revised version. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 15 2022 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,

Saqib Bashir

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

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.

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: No

Reviewer #2: 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: Title is not appropriate and very confusing. Kindly revise title accordingly. Write up is still poor. It requires extensive language improvement. I observe a lot of grammar mistakes in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: Authors have made all significant changes in the MS, therefore paper should be accepted in the current form.

**********

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 #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 2

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

please improve grammatical mistakes in the revised version.

Response: We have gone through with English Editing company and Certificate is also attached.

Reviewer #1:

Comments: Title is not appropriate and very confusing. Kindly revise title accordingly. Write up is still poor. It requires extensive language improvement. I observe a lot of grammar mistakes in the manuscript.

Response: We have gone through with English Editing company and Certificate is also attached.

Reviewer #2:

Comments: Authors have made all significant changes in the MS, therefore paper should be accepted in the current form.

Response: thanks

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response letter.docx
Decision Letter - Saqib Bashir, Editor

PONE-D-21-21085R2Combined Application of Zinc and Iron-Lysine and its effects on Morpho-Physiological Traits, Antioxidant Capacity and Chromium Uptake in Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Saleem,

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:

Please address minor corrections and submit.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 29 2022 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,

Saqib Bashir

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:

[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 3

Comment

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Please address minor corrections and submit.

Response: We had revised the manuscript and corrected it accordingly and go throughout the MS to ensure that there will be no grammar mistake. Thanks for your time and suggestions.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewersssss.docx
Decision Letter - Saqib Bashir, Editor

Combined Application of Zinc and Iron-Lysine and its effects on Morpho-Physiological Traits, Antioxidant Capacity and Chromium Uptake in Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.)

PONE-D-21-21085R3

Dear Dr. Saleem,

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,

Saqib Bashir

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Saqib Bashir, Editor

PONE-D-21-21085R3

Combined Application of Zinc and Iron-Lysine and its effects on Morpho-Physiological Traits, Antioxidant Capacity and Chromium Uptake in Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.)

Dear Dr. Saleem:

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. Saqib Bashir

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 .