Influence of Seed Quality Stimulation in “Khao Dawk Mali 105” Rough Rice during the Deterioration Period Using an Automatic Soaking and Germination Accelerator Unit and Infrared Radiation Treatment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review: Vipattanaporn et al., (2022) for AgriEngineering
This manuscript is generally very well written and describes the germination rate and GABA content of local rice grown under different conditions. Recommend it be published after minor revisions.
The primary concern is that the authors overextend the precision of their data, presenting results to four and five significant figures when the methodology does not allow such accuracy. For example, if only 300 seeds are sampled for germination tests, a rate accurate to a hundredth of percent is not possible (Table 2). Likewise, a grain temperature stated as 49.43 oC requires extremely precise measurements and is likely not applicable to an entire kilogram of rice (line 113, 129). Correctly indicating the precision of the data will not affect the authors’ conclusions.
Figure legends are incomplete for figures 3,4 and 5, please fix this.
There are several instances of “Error! Reference source not found.” in the manuscript- please correct this.
The images for Figures 1, 2 and 3 are small and difficult to see. Could the authors make these larger? Also, Figure 2 is incorrectly indicated in the legend as “Figure 1”.
In the Discussion and in the Conclusion there is reference to “odor defect” observations that were not included in the Results. Could the authors elaborate on this in the Results?
The formatting in the Reference section is inconsistent. Words in the article title and in the journal are sometimes in capitals, sometimes in lowercase (e.g. Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research in reference 36). Also, reference 18 does not appear to list a journal?
Minor comments-
Should there be a list of abbreviations used?
Please define “rough rice”.
On line 91, the “voltage regulator” indicated in Figure 3 is probably better described as a “voltage controller” since the variable transformer shown does not actually regulate AC voltage.
Please define “good performance” as noted on line 102.
On line 115 “a9t” should be “at”.
On line 123, “…for futher analysis,…” may be better written as “… for later analysis,…”
On line 151, what is the source of the GABA used as a reference?
The first sentence of the Results in incomplete- what is different? Could finish the sentence with something like “…water uptake behavior during imbibition and germination.”
On line 189, when a reference has more than 2-3 authors the citation should be in the format <primary author> et al.
What is the time period referenced for the germination rate differences on line 192?
The first sentence of the Discussion is awkward. Perhaps write as “Correlations of the germination rate between the factors and the responses were highly negative.”
Author Response
I have revised as suggested, with the subject as in the attached document
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The current manuscript "Influence of Seed Quality Stimulation in “Khao Dawk Mali 2 105” Rough Rice during the Deterioration Period Using an Automatic Soaking and Germination Accelerator Unit and Infrared Radiation Treatment by Vipattanaporn et al., is of interest for readers. However, certain changes should be made before acceptance.
Abstract: Need to add the most significant results.
Objectives: Objectives need to redesign because it is said it will improve crop productivity but did not explain how it will be done.
Introduction: Need to add more relevant information and background information.
Material and Methods: Need to clearly describe key steps. How material was stored treated and then tested. Specifications of equipment should be added and how it was calibrated.
Results: Should be clearly described and try to focus on key findings with an appropriate comparison with control.
Discussion: Properly discuss the underlying reason and how it will influence our current understanding of the field. Also, include the significance of these findings.
Thank you
Author Response
I have revised as suggested. with the subjects as in the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed most of the minor concerns of this reviewer. In Point 13, the source of the GABA used as a reference is requested so that the readers can have confidence in the results presented. For this reason, please indicate in the manuscript the producer and purity grade of the GABA used as an HPLC reference.
This reviewer's primary concern (Point 1) remains unaddressed, however. The precision of almost *all* the results in this manuscript are overstated. In one example, if 0.2-0.5 g of finely ground GRR are weighed out for GABA quantitation (line 146), how can one get a result like 12.85±2.29 mg GABA/100 g d.w (Table 4)? In the initial weighing step the mass is only known to 1-2 significant digits. One cannot then get a result accurate to 4-5 significant digits. Just because a calculator or software can print results to such significance does not mean it is so. This reviewer's opinion is that the authors need to round their numerical results so that the number of significant figures presented are appropriate to how the data was collected. If the authors insist that this is the precision of their results, then they must expand the Methods section to detail the painstaking methods and highly calibrated instrumentation used.
Author Response
I have made corrections in accordance with your suggestions, with the revision details according to the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall quality has been improved
Author Response
I have made corrections in accordance with your instructions.
Thank you for your kindness.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed everything but my primary concern, which they apparently to not want to correct. I leave it to the journal editor(s) to make their final decision.
