Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled ’Detection and Identification Methods and Control Techniques for Crop Seed Diseases’ aimed to summarize crop seed diseases, their detection and identification methods, and control techniques.

 Recent years references are few. Update the literature and add recent data.

Table 1: Error in reference column, Characteristics of seeds column is also not organized, difficult to read respective disease and its characteristics. Organize rest of the tables too to have more clear data.

In visual inspection part, microscopic part should be elaborated by providing more details of various diseases that were studied by using different type of microscopes. 

Is there any progress in nano based technologies regarding detection of seed diseases? If so kindly report.

 In methods of detection, In silico progress should also be mentioned. Tools that are bioinformatics based or AI based should be added too. And in future perspectives more advanced possibilities should be discussed.

 Pat 3 testing methods are nicely explained, but there should be a table with example disease that were identified using each method.

 Flowcharts of PCRs, Figure 1, 2 and 3 are unnecessary.

 L239- Nested PCR

 

Dear Authors, 

Minor English editing is needed. Read for spell and grammar critically.

 

Bests

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitles “Detection and Identification Methods and Control Techniques for Crop Seed Diseases” summarizes and highlights the significant role of seed health and its impact on agricultural productivity. It emphasizes the importance of detecting and identifying pathogens in seeds to ensure successful crop management and protect against disease transmission. The incorporation of control techniques and prevention strategies is also mentioned as crucial for effective seed disease management.

Overall, the article touches upon important aspects of seed health and disease control. However, there are many serious critical points and issues which should be considered or addressed in any kind of review article. In this manuscript, a few suggestions are:

#The abstract should be a summary of the whole subject matter starting with an introduction to a conclusion and recommendations based on published research. But the abstract section lacks specific details about the diseases, detection methods, and control techniques discussed in the article. It could benefit from providing a concise summary of the key diseases covered and highlighting the main contributions of the review.

# The introduction broadly highlights the significance of seed health and disease, it lacks specific details about the key crop seed diseases that will be discussed. Providing examples of major diseases could engage readers and set the context more effectively. A big issue is the absence of motivation in the introduction. The introduction could benefit from a clear statement of the knowledge gap or motivation that this review aims to address. What specific challenges or gaps in the literature does the review seek to tackle?

#The article states the importance of seed diseases but fails to provide an in-depth discussion of specific diseases that have a global agricultural impact. Providing case studies or detailed information about a few major seed-borne diseases could greatly enhance the relevance and value of the review.

#The review would benefit from a more critical analysis of the various detection and identification methods and control techniques. Highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of different methods and their applicability in different contexts could provide more insightful guidance.

#The article does not provide clear information about the methodology used to select the diseases, detection methods, and control techniques discussed in the review. This lack of transparency raises questions about the basis for the selection and the credibility of the content.

#The discussion of detection and control methods lacks depth and fails to engage with recent advancements in the field. The review could greatly benefit from addressing emerging technologies and trends that are shaping the landscape of seed disease management.

# The conclusion should aim to draw broader implications and potential future directions based on the insights discussed in the article. It should provide guidance for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers on how to approach seed health management more effectively.

# The article lacks originality in terms of the topics covered and the perspectives presented. It covers a well-known and important topic but does not offer new insights or perspectives that would make it stand out among existing literature.

#The article lacks proper citations and references to support the claims and information presented. A more rigorous referencing approach is necessary to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the content.

#The language used is generally clear, but the lack of specific examples and detailed explanations makes it challenging for readers who are not experts in the field to fully grasp the concepts presented.

 

Based on the shortcomings outlined above, I would recommend the rejection of this manuscript in its current form. To enhance the quality and impact of the review, the author should consider revising the manuscript to address the critical points raised and provide a more comprehensive, specific, and insightful analysis of seed health, disease detection, and control methods. Additionally, incorporating recent research and advancements in the field would greatly improve the relevance of the review.

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

 

Reviewer suggestion: Minor revision

Overall, the manuscript provides a nice study in Detection and Identification Methods and Control Techniques for Crop Seed Diseases. However, the reviewer thinks there are some aspects that can be improved answered as listed below:

 

1.     The introduction could be improved and more focused on new researches in this field.

 

2.     This reviewer thinks that an additional section in relation to novel aspects of this work.

 

3.     Please write the aims of this research, clearly.

4.     Add these new papers in introduction or discussion sections:

 Detection of fungal infectous agent of wheat grains in store-pits of Markazi province, Iran

A novel encapsulation of Streptomyces fulvissimus Uts22 by spray drying and its biocontrol efficiency against Gaeumannomyces graminis, the causal agent of take-all disease in wheat

Finally, after these minor corrections, this manuscript can be publish. Please send me the revised version before publishing.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is substantially improved and can be accepted in its current form