Study of Biology of Pink Bollworm (Pectinophora Gossypiella) Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae on Alternate Host (Okra) Muhammad Umer


Muhammad Umer

Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan

M Atif

Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan

M Ahmad

Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan

Peer Review Report

Received Date

02.11.2018

Accepted Date

24.12.2018

Published Date

30.01.2019

Plagiarism

Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

Current scientific research study is the study on biology of Pink Bollworm which is being the major pests of cotton and Okra as an alternate host. Study was tried to analysis the biology transformation of pink bollworm larva and okra as an alternate host for the pink bollworm larva.

Major Comments

  1. Abstract is not fulfilling its purpose. It is not giving the narrative view of entire study. The author should give some more information in the part of abstract where the readers of the paper will get clear view about the reason for the study.
  2. Very important part of any research study is objective. This paper is not framed with any objective it seems. There is no any objective of the study in any part of the paper. Without objective a research study will not be a complete one. So, the researcher has to add objectives of the study.
  3. There is no source of information given for the images of experiment in the paper (figure 1-5). The author should give whether those images are first hand experiment or it is captured from some other sources. Source of information should be highlighted for future references.
  4. An experimental detail has given in ‘material and methods’ part of the paper but there was no any information on methodology used for that experiment. Author should give the detail of the methodology adopted for the experiment.
  5. There was no mention of the limitations of the study, one of which is the apparently high dropout rate. Also, mention how your results compare to (reference given to author) another study which was published very recently.
  6. There is no information on the review of related literatures and references. If this study is first hand study the researcher should produce valid proof or can include the reference details on the study.
  7. There was no proper explanation for the table given in the paper. It is a compulsory need to give interpretation/explanation for the table when other readers want the explanation about that particular table.
  8. No information/proof of experiment has given to justify the title of the research paper.

Minor Comment

  1. There is no reference detail in the references part of the study where the introduction part of the study is mentioning with the reference name alone. The author should give correct references when they want to give in the content of paper.
  2. Conclusion is not giving the needed information. It is not concluded out of findings of the study it seems. Many the readers of the paper will look into the conclusion where the details of entire research will be summarized. So the researcher should make enough changes in the conclusion.
  3. For every reference individual footnote can be created for the easy identification of reference sources.

Associate Editor’s Critique

The study has several strengths where there was some major weakness also. The very important needed information of the study like objectives of the study, research methodology used and findings are missing. The author should include all the needed information for the study to strengthen the value of the paper.

Constructiveness of Comments

The review committee has given the constructive comments to the author /researcher.

Level of Detail of the Review

The review is fairly detailed, but the reviewer missed data inconsistence in the required field. There are major corrections to be taken place before the final review.

Substantiation of Comments

The reviewer made comments on the paper with references.

Was the Review Biased?

The study was reviewed under ‘nil’ biased basis.

Recommendation from the Reviewer

I recommend that, this paper be accepted after the above mentioned minor revisions.