Unveiling the Efficiency of Psychrophillic Aporrectodea caliginosa in Deciphering the Nutrients from Dalweed and Cow Manure with Bio-Optimization of Coprolites

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that the paper, or the idea of the paper, is very cool. Scientists are looking for the solution for an environmental problem and they decided for a good approach. From this point of view, the paper is dealing with a very interesting issue and other scientists and workers can be inspired by reading their work. Unfortunately, not in the current state. Major revision must be done.

1. English must be checked by a native speaker. I am not a native speaker and I found so many mistakes and typos. It seems that the focus on the paper preparation was very low. Please, use a grammar checker and a professional language service to make your paper look good.
2. Please, use different words in Keywords section, different from those in the Title. For example, earthworms, vermicomposting, and so on.
3. The graphical abstract in my version was bad. Have no idea if it was caused by different SW versions. Perhaps your version is correct, but my version is unreadable, the text is covered by a picture.
4. Lakh – I have found it means “a hundred thousand”. But this unit cannot be used in the scientific paper you wanna publish worldwide.
5. Nelumbo leaves…….different font in the text. Please, check it.
6. Once you apply an abbreviation, stick with it! Cattle manure (CM). N – is it an abbreviation for nitrogen or nutrients? TOC…OC, both abbreviations can be found in the text.
7. Well, once you mentioned this fact, you don’t have to mention it again.
8. The results…..well, I don’t understand why for God’s sake you decided to show your results in the form you did. It is a mess. Difficult to understand. If you are measuring some properties in the beginning, in the middle, and finally in the end of the experiment, measure what you wanna measure, put your results into the table, calculate ANOVA, then apply post hoc analysis, and you are done! I am checking Fig. 1 again and……I don’t understand. It shows literally nothing. Recalculate your results. Another thing is, the orders you have used (such as DW100 < CM…). Without ANOVA, your results are useless. As I understand, you have done several measurements (repeated measurements), so you have the data you need for such analysis. Recalculate your data, please. You have done so many analyses, including enzymatic activities…write your paper properly! It is a big shame to have data and not use them.
9. I have got one question about the experiment. You were analyzing kilograms of the material, but conditions will be completely different under real conditions at the compost facility. Are you going to study this in the future?

Conclusions

Good topic, good idea, good approaches (methodology), missing basic statistical analyses, bad presentation of your data, poor paper preparation. A major revision is needed. 

Author Response

Dear sir/Madam

we have strictly followed your valuable comments/suggestion for  improvement of the Manuscript. The detailed response is herewith attached along with the manuscript

your sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is interesting and has a potential. The design of the research is relevant. However, the language is very poor, with grammatical and spelling errors, wrong spelling, odd choices of words and a lot of words missing. That makes it difficult to read and review the manuscript. The language in the whole manuscript have to be improved before it is possible to make an appropriate review.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam

We have strictly followed your valuable comments/suggestion for improvement of the manuscript. The incorporations are highlighted in the attached manuscript.

yours sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this version is good.

Reviewer 2 Report

There are some minor misspelling and blanks missed. Otherwise this version is much better than the first.