Peer Review Record

Manuscript ID: JOSTA-202607-2E88

Article Title: Optimization of Vermicompost Rates based on the Nitrogen and Phosphorus Requirements of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in Northwestern Amhara, Ethiopia

Double-anonymous review Accepted

Review Summary

Editorial Assessment

The manuscript presents a clear and well-motivated research problem, addressing declining soil fertility, nitrogen and phosphorus deficiencies, and overreliance on inorganic fertilisers in Ethiopian wheat systems through an integrated nutrient management (vermicompost × NP fertiliser) approach. Reviewers considered the study well designed, noting that the permanent-plot design with a three-year residual-effect component represents a stronger approach than a typical single-season trial, and that the inclusion of both agronomic and partial-budget economic analysis strengthens its applied relevance. The data analysis and interpretation were rated high quality, the conclusions valid and well supported, and the study was recognised as an original and valuable contribution reflecting a high standard of scientific rigour. Minor revisions were requested concerning methodological and statistical detail in the Abstract, redundancy in the Introduction, justification of key methodological choices (earthworm species, wheat variety, and analytical method selection), consistency in treatment-unit reporting between tables and figures, statistical reporting and analytical approach (including a recommendation to consider repeated-measures analysis given the permanent-plot design), and a number of typographical, formatting, and terminology corrections. The authors satisfactorily addressed all comments, after which the manuscript was accepted for publication.

Review Timeline

Item	Details
Submission Date	17 July 2026
Editorial Screening	Completed
External Reviewers	2
Review Rounds	1
Revision Type	Minor Revision
Final Decision	Accepted
Acceptance Date	17 August 2026

Submission Received

17 July 2026

Manuscript submitted through the JOSTA submission portal.

Editorial Screening Completed

21 July 2026

Manuscript passed preliminary editorial checks.

Peer Review Initiated

28 July 2026

Two independent reviewers accepted the review assignment.

Reviewer Reports Received

08 August 2026

Reviewers recommended publication following minor revision.

Revised Manuscript Received

14 August 2026

Authors submitted a revised version addressing reviewer concerns.

Final Decision

17 August 2026

Accepted for publication.

Published Online

19 August 2026

Article published in Volume 2, Issue 4.

Key Issues Addressed During Revision

Reviewer concerns are summarised by category. Specific comments and author responses are confidential.

Peer Review Statement

Category	Nature of Concern	Status
Abstract – Statistical Detail	Inclusion of essential methodological and statistical details in the Abstract, such as number of replications, level of statistical significance, and a brief comparison of treatment effects with the control	✓ Addressed
Introduction – Redundancy	Repeated statements on the benefits of organic and inorganic fertilisers to be reduced, with sharper focus on the study's specific objectives and rationale	✓ Addressed
Methodology – Sample Size Reporting	Number of plants per treatment to be explicitly stated	✓ Addressed
Methodology – Species Selection Rationale	Justification requested for the selection of Eisenia fetida as the earthworm species used for vermicompost production	✓ Addressed
Methodology – Variety Selection Rationale	Criteria and scientific rationale for selecting the particular wheat variety, and its relevance to the study objectives, to be clearly explained	✓ Addressed
Methodology – Analytical Method Justification	Clarification requested on the use of the Olsen method for available phosphorus determination given the slightly acidic soil pH (5.8), since this method is generally recommended for neutral to alkaline soils	✓ Addressed
Data Presentation Consistency	NP fertiliser treatments presented inconsistently as absolute quantities (kg ha⁻¹) in Table 1 versus percentages in Figure 2; terminology and units to be standardised throughout	✓ Addressed
Statistical Reporting – Available Phosphorus	Clarification requested on whether the observed change in available phosphorus with vermicompost application was statistically significant, with discussion of the likely underlying mechanisms	✓ Addressed
Statistical Analysis Approach	Given the permanent-plot design with repeated sampling of the same units across three cropping seasons, consideration of a repeated-measures ANOVA or linear mixed-effects model (Year as a within-plot factor, Block/Plot as random effects) in place of separately computed yearly means and SEs	✓ Addressed
Figure Legend Completeness	Figure 2 legend to define all abbreviations (e.g., NP, VC) and describe the relevant experimental conditions	✓ Addressed
Citation & Sentence Redundancy	Repeated author citation near line 340 to be removed and the sentence revised for readability and flow	✓ Addressed
Table & Heading Accuracy	Spelling errors in section subheadings ("Data Collection", "Experimental setup") and in Table 5 terms (e.g., "Straw", "Benefit"), together with abbreviation inconsistencies, to be corrected throughout	✓ Addressed
Table Formatting Conventions	Statistical significance indicators (a, b, c…) to be formatted as superscripts consistently across tables, and treatment-rate labels (e.g., 50% NP, 100% NP) rendered as subscripts (e.g., NP₅₀, NP₁₀₀) to distinguish them from surrounding text	✓ Addressed
Terminology & Formatting Details	Keyword "Phosphorous" corrected to "Phosphorus"; consistent spacing added before the % sign; table headers with abbreviations (e.g., GY, AGY) spelled out via footnote where not already defined	✓ Addressed

Journal of Sustainable Technology in Agriculture (JOSTA) employs a double-anonymous peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers remain mutually confidential throughout the review and publication process. Reviewer reports and correspondence are not published.

Voluntary reviewer disclosure. JOSTA respects reviewers' autonomy regarding attribution. A reviewer who wishes to be identified in the published article may notify the editorial office at any point before final acceptance. Upon written consent, the reviewer's name and affiliation will be acknowledged in the Publication & Reviewer Details section of the article. Reviewers who do not provide consent remain anonymous and are listed as Anonymous. This policy is strictly voluntary; no reviewer is under any obligation to disclose their identity.

This page provides a transparent summary of the editorial and peer-review process in accordance with JOSTA's open-science commitments. It does not constitute a full disclosure of reviewer comments or author responses.