Peer Review Record

Manuscript ID: JOSTA-202608-6F46

Article Title: Improving Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) Productivity through Optimised Nitrogen and Phosphorus Application in Northwestern Ethiopia

Double-anonymous review Accepted

Review Summary

Item	Details
Submission Date	15 August 2026
Editorial Screening	Completed
External Reviewers	2
Review Rounds	1
Revision Type	Minor Revision
Final Decision	Accepted
Acceptance Date	18 September 2026

Item

Details

Submission Date

15 August 2026

Editorial Screening

Completed

External Reviewers

Review Rounds

Revision Type

Minor Revision

Final Decision

Accepted

Acceptance Date

18 September 2026

Editorial Assessment

The manuscript addresses a relevant and practically important topic on optimising nitrogen and phosphorus application for sesame production in Northwestern Ethiopia, with clear potential value for local agronomic recommendations. Reviewers identified substantial revisions needed to strengthen the research gap and justification for multi-location testing, clarify the multi-location experimental design and statistical model, and improve the completeness and verification of statistical reporting, particularly the ANOVA table and the treatment-means table. A central concern was an apparent inconsistency between the Abstract, Results, and Conclusion regarding the fertiliser rate producing maximum yield versus the economically optimum rate; reviewers requested that the manuscript consistently distinguish "maximum-yield treatment," "agronomic optimum," "economic optimum," and "recommended rate" throughout. Reviewers also requested a strengthened economic analysis, deeper scientific interpretation in the Discussion rather than restatement of Results, and verification of methodological, soil-analytical, and bibliographic details. The authors satisfactorily addressed all comments, after which the manuscript was accepted for publication.

Review Timeline

Submission Received

15 August 2026

Manuscript submitted through the JOSTA submission portal.

Editorial Screening Completed

21 August 2026

Manuscript passed preliminary editorial checks.

Peer Review Initiated

25 August 2026

Two independent reviewers accepted the review assignment.

Reviewer Reports Received

01 September 2026

Reviewers recommended publication following minor revision.

Revised Manuscript Received

13 September 2026

Authors submitted a revised version addressing reviewer concerns.

Final Decision

18 September 2026

Accepted for publication.

Published Online

20 September 2026

Article published in Volume 2, Issue 5.

Key Issues Addressed During Revision

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

Category	Nature of Concern	Status
Introduction – Research Gap & Rationale	Research gap and study objectives stated more explicitly, including justification for multi-location testing given differences in soil fertility, climate, and nutrient response among sites, and how the study contributes beyond previous Ethiopian fertiliser studies	✓ Addressed
Objective Definition – "Optimal" Terminology	Clarification of whether "optimal" N and P rates refers to maximum biological yield, agronomic optimum, or economic optimum	✓ Addressed
Experimental Design Clarification	Distinction between the five experimental sites and the three districts used for reporting clarified; experimental unit, replication structure, and whether site/location was treated as a fixed or random factor specified	✓ Addressed
Fertiliser Level Justification	Basis for selecting the five N levels (0, 46, 69, 92, 115 kg N ha⁻¹) and three P₂O₅ levels (0, 23, 46 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹), including the rationale for the chosen increments, clearly explained	✓ Addressed
Fertiliser Composition & Units	TSP nutrient concentration verified and corrected (TSP contains approximately 46% P₂O₅, not 20% P as originally stated), with full consistency ensured between fertiliser composition and reported P₂O₅ treatment rates	✓ Addressed
Soil Data Verification	Consistency confirmed between soil properties reported in Methods and Table 1, including whether organic carbon or organic matter was measured and any conversion used; CEC values, units, and analytical method verified; the claim that heavy-clay texture provides good drainage revised to align with supporting field/hydraulic evidence	✓ Addressed
Methodological Detail for Reproducibility	Materials and Methods expanded with sufficient detail for replication, including exact timing in days after sowing; "manual wedding" corrected to "manual weeding" (line 68)	✓ Addressed
Statistical Model & Notation	Complete statistical model provided, with fixed and random effects identified, nesting structure of replication within site/location explained, R version and package(s) stated, and ANOVA assumption checks described; model notation (e.g. response and error-term subscripts) and interaction-term subscripts corrected, and the statistical equation re-rendered correctly	✓ Addressed
Table 2 – ANOVA Verification	P-values or clearly defined significance levels added for ANOVA results, with in-text statistical significance made directly traceable to Table 2, and degrees of freedom and mean-square values verified	✓ Addressed
Table 5 – Completeness	All 15 N × P treatment combinations completed for every response variable discussed in the Results, with treatment means presented with appropriate statistical grouping or standard errors	✓ Addressed
Results – Statistical Significance Clarity	Statistical significance of reported treatment effects clarified throughout the Results, with revised wording where responses to 92 and 115 kg N ha⁻¹ were statistically non-significant for grain yield, plant height, and related parameters	✓ Addressed
Abstract/Results/Conclusion Consistency	Contradictory statements regarding the maximum-yield treatment versus the economically optimum treatment resolved, with "maximum-yield treatment," "agronomic optimum," "economic optimum," and "recommended rate" used consistently across the Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion	✓ Addressed
Economic Analysis	Partial budget/economic analysis strengthened and verified, with sufficient detail provided to support the recommended fertiliser rate	✓ Addressed
Discussion – Depth & Interpretation	Discussion strengthened with physiological/agronomic interpretation (e.g. why N and P increased seed number per pod despite a non-significant interaction) and a more integrated treatment of vegetative growth and reproductive development, critically compared with previous studies rather than restating Results	✓ Addressed
Consistency in Units, Terminology & Figures	Fertiliser rate units (kg N ha⁻¹, kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹) and terminology (e.g. "seed number per pod") standardised throughout; all figures revised to ensure clearly labelled X- and Y-axes with units of measurement	✓ Addressed
References Verification	Every reference checked for completeness and accuracy against JOSTA's minimum bibliographic requirements, including degree type and institution for thesis references and publisher, year, and place of publication for book references	✓ Addressed
Language & Formatting Compliance	Language and grammatical editing completed, with compliance ensured against all journal formatting and declaration requirements	✓ Addressed

Category

Nature of Concern

Status

Introduction – Research Gap & Rationale

Research gap and study objectives stated more explicitly, including justification for multi-location testing given differences in soil fertility, climate, and nutrient response among sites, and how the study contributes beyond previous Ethiopian fertiliser studies

✓ Addressed

Objective Definition – "Optimal" Terminology

Clarification of whether "optimal" N and P rates refers to maximum biological yield, agronomic optimum, or economic optimum

✓ Addressed

Experimental Design Clarification

Distinction between the five experimental sites and the three districts used for reporting clarified; experimental unit, replication structure, and whether site/location was treated as a fixed or random factor specified

✓ Addressed

Fertiliser Level Justification

Basis for selecting the five N levels (0, 46, 69, 92, 115 kg N ha⁻¹) and three P₂O₅ levels (0, 23, 46 kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹), including the rationale for the chosen increments, clearly explained

✓ Addressed

Fertiliser Composition & Units

TSP nutrient concentration verified and corrected (TSP contains approximately 46% P₂O₅, not 20% P as originally stated), with full consistency ensured between fertiliser composition and reported P₂O₅ treatment rates

✓ Addressed

Soil Data Verification

Consistency confirmed between soil properties reported in Methods and Table 1, including whether organic carbon or organic matter was measured and any conversion used; CEC values, units, and analytical method verified; the claim that heavy-clay texture provides good drainage revised to align with supporting field/hydraulic evidence

✓ Addressed

Methodological Detail for Reproducibility

Materials and Methods expanded with sufficient detail for replication, including exact timing in days after sowing; "manual wedding" corrected to "manual weeding" (line 68)

✓ Addressed

Statistical Model & Notation

Complete statistical model provided, with fixed and random effects identified, nesting structure of replication within site/location explained, R version and package(s) stated, and ANOVA assumption checks described; model notation (e.g. response and error-term subscripts) and interaction-term subscripts corrected, and the statistical equation re-rendered correctly

✓ Addressed

Table 2 – ANOVA Verification

P-values or clearly defined significance levels added for ANOVA results, with in-text statistical significance made directly traceable to Table 2, and degrees of freedom and mean-square values verified

✓ Addressed

Table 5 – Completeness

All 15 N × P treatment combinations completed for every response variable discussed in the Results, with treatment means presented with appropriate statistical grouping or standard errors

✓ Addressed

Results – Statistical Significance Clarity

Statistical significance of reported treatment effects clarified throughout the Results, with revised wording where responses to 92 and 115 kg N ha⁻¹ were statistically non-significant for grain yield, plant height, and related parameters

✓ Addressed

Abstract/Results/Conclusion Consistency

Contradictory statements regarding the maximum-yield treatment versus the economically optimum treatment resolved, with "maximum-yield treatment," "agronomic optimum," "economic optimum," and "recommended rate" used consistently across the Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion

✓ Addressed

Economic Analysis

Partial budget/economic analysis strengthened and verified, with sufficient detail provided to support the recommended fertiliser rate

✓ Addressed

Discussion – Depth & Interpretation

Discussion strengthened with physiological/agronomic interpretation (e.g. why N and P increased seed number per pod despite a non-significant interaction) and a more integrated treatment of vegetative growth and reproductive development, critically compared with previous studies rather than restating Results

✓ Addressed

Consistency in Units, Terminology & Figures

Fertiliser rate units (kg N ha⁻¹, kg P₂O₅ ha⁻¹) and terminology (e.g. "seed number per pod") standardised throughout; all figures revised to ensure clearly labelled X- and Y-axes with units of measurement

✓ Addressed

References Verification

Every reference checked for completeness and accuracy against JOSTA's minimum bibliographic requirements, including degree type and institution for thesis references and publisher, year, and place of publication for book references

✓ Addressed

Language & Formatting Compliance

Language and grammatical editing completed, with compliance ensured against all journal formatting and declaration requirements

✓ Addressed

Peer Review Statement

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.