Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is written well. The presentation of the paper was also decent and the contents will interest scholars in the field.

Author Response

Thank you for your recognition. In order to improve the quality of the article, we made further changes to the manuscript. Please review the revised manuscript, and welcome your valuable suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-done study. However, the article should be revised by the author(s) and then can become a good contribution to this journal. 

I recommend several issues that should be addressed:

1-     The abstract need to be revised.

2- The personal style for example (We) should be avoided in a scientific paper.

 

3-  There are some English and typing mistakes; I believe the author(s) will be able to figure out as they revise the manuscript.

4- Please refine the purpose of this study more clearly in the introduction.

5- Some sentences are long. To improve readability, consider breaking those into multiple sentences. 

6- Please check the "Reference" section to correct several errors and inconsistencies with respect to the journal's reference format.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Report Reviewer

 

Summary brief

In this work, machine vision technology was used to extract the characteristics of the seeds to be selected. Machine vision was applied using a specific software, PhenoSeed. To determine the appropriate processing process and important parameters for the sort of Platycodon grandiflorum seeds, the principles of seed processing and selection were considered. The selection effect was verified using different Platycodon grandiflorum seed lots and laboratory equipment.

 

General concept comments

The article is complete but not entirely comprehensive in its discussion of the data, which appears to be slightly lacking. In fact, it is recommended that the discussion be deepened by citing other studies and comparing them with the work. The description of materials and methods also needs to be detailed in some places to make the entire article clearer and more scientifically valid. Indeed, it is not well understood how many replicates were adopted and whether all batches were taken into account in the trial. Figure 1 is also a little critical and does not allow the experimental scheme to be clarified. The introduction is well done and follows a linearity that allows the reader to briefly understand the issues in the field and the purpose of the work. The results have good scientific value, but are somewhat confusing and repetitive in places and require slight corrections.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Report Reviewer

The article was revised in its entirety and all comments were answered. One can see that there has been a thorough revision work that has resulted in a much better version of the manuscript that makes it clearer, more readable and of scientific importance. A few minor inaccuracies still remain. I suggested to add a first part of the results describing well the starting conditions of the samples. This could also be summarized with a table. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf