Peer Review Record

Manuscript ID: JOSTA-202609-7F59

Article Title: Performance Evaluation and Late Blight Reaction of Advanced Potato Genotypes for Yield and Quality Traits in Bekoji, Southeastern Ethiopia

Double-anonymous review Accepted

Review Summary

Item	Details
Submission Date	07 September 2026
Editorial Screening	Completed
External Reviewers	2
Review Rounds	2
Revision Type	Major Revision
Final Decision	Accepted
Acceptance Date	21 October 2026

Item

Details

Submission Date

07 September 2026

Editorial Screening

Completed

External Reviewers

Review Rounds

Revision Type

Major Revision

Final Decision

Accepted

Acceptance Date

21 October 2026

Editorial Assessment

The manuscript compares advanced potato genotypes for agronomic performance, yield, tuber quality, and late blight response in Bekoji, southeastern Ethiopia, and was judged to address a relevant topic with useful comparative information. Reviewers nonetheless required substantial revision of both scientific and presentation-related aspects. The principal concerns were incomplete and inconsistent reporting of experimental methods and statistical analyses, including the model for the combined two-year analysis and the genotype × year interaction; unclear definitions of several traits; inconsistencies in genotype identification and in yield comparisons between text and tables; missing correlation coefficients and significance values; and the rationale and timing of the fungicide application in a study that also scored late blight and AUDPC. Reviewers also asked for a title that reflects the late blight component, a shorter and less repetitive manuscript, a more logical Introduction with an explicit research gap and single objective, a Discussion that interprets rather than lists prior findings, and a more cautious Conclusion acknowledging the single-location design. Thorough editorial revision and correction of the reference list, including missing and duplicate entries, were also required. The authors satisfactorily addressed all comments, after which the manuscript was accepted for publication.

Review Timeline

Submission Received

07 September 2026

Manuscript submitted through the JOSTA submission portal.

Editorial Screening Completed

12 September 2026

Manuscript passed preliminary editorial checks.

Peer Review Initiated

16 September 2026

Two independent reviewers accepted the review assignment.

Reviewer Reports Received

30 September 2026

Reviewers recommended publication following major revision.

Revised Manuscript Received

10 October 2026

Authors submitted a revised version addressing reviewer concerns.

Final Decision

21 October 2026

Accepted for publication.

Published Online

22 October 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.

Category	Nature of Concern	Status
Title & Scope	Title revised so that it reflects the late blight component, which is a major selection criterion and occupies a substantial part of the Results, alongside yield and quality traits	✓ Addressed
Manuscript Length & Redundancy	Manuscript shortened to meet the journal's word limit (4,000 words excluding references, tables, and figure captions), with repetition removed from the Introduction and Discussion and duplicated sentences deleted	✓ Addressed
Abstract Accuracy	Vague wording on tuber quality replaced, "repetitions" corrected to "replications," the statement on significant differences reconciled with the ANOVA (including the non-significant emergence trait), and the concluding claim about accelerating variety development softened to describe the genotypes as potential breeding material	✓ Addressed
Journal Compliance	Keywords added, together with the ethical statements and declarations required by the journal guidelines	✓ Addressed
Introduction – Flow, Gap & Objective	Introduction restructured into a logical sequence (global importance, Ethiopian production and consumption, processing demand, required quality traits, current limitations, objective), with overlapping nutritional and processing statements condensed, the research gap and the rationale for the genotypes selected made explicit, a single objective stated, evaluative and colloquial wording replaced, and terminology for quality traits made uniform	✓ Addressed
Study Site & Environment	Experimental site described fully, including location(s), coordinates, altitude, climate, seasons and years, and the basis for the reported soil texture and acidity (method and measured values where available); unsupported statements on pest behaviour removed; Tables 1 and 2 corrected for formatting, units, and consistency with the described cropping seasons	✓ Addressed
Genotype Identification & Terminology	Genotype classification clarified (advanced clones versus the released check variety Burka), the total number of entries confirmed, "variety" versus "advanced clone" usage corrected, table cross-references fixed, and a single genotype terminology used throughout	✓ Addressed
Experimental Design & Field Management	Design of the combined two-year experiment described explicitly (years, treatments, replications per year, experimental unit, plot and net plot size, plants per plot, field used each year, and randomisation), agronomic practices specified with timing and purpose, and the pre-harvest operation described with correct terminology (haulm cutting rather than "dehulling")	✓ Addressed
Fungicide Application & Late Blight Assessment	Rationale, date, growth stage, dose, and uniformity of the single fungicide application explained in relation to disease scoring and AUDPC, with its possible influence on genotype reaction acknowledged; assessment timing and number of assessment dates clarified; AUDPC formula and variables completed; source and thresholds for the reaction classes given; and the CIP (2006) guideline added to the references	✓ Addressed
Trait Definitions & Measurement Procedures	Trait definitions and procedures clarified, including emergence versus flowering, the maturity criterion used consistently, marketable-tuber criteria, bulking rate formula, sample sizes per trait, specific gravity and dry matter procedures, the source of the starch equation, scoring of tuber shape, eye depth, colour, and appearance, and description of any quality traits reported in the Results (such as chip colour and tuber uniformity); methods rewritten in the past tense with consistent units	✓ Addressed
Statistical Model & Analysis	Full model for the combined analysis stated (year, genotype, genotype × year, replication within year, residual), with fixed or random treatment of factors, test used for homogeneity of variance, assessment of the genotype × year interaction, ANOVA assumption checks, R version and packages, conditions for applying LSD, handling of qualitative and ordinal traits, and exact P-values or ANOVA information supplied so that significance statements can be traced	✓ Addressed
Results Accuracy & Internal Consistency	Inconsistencies between text, tables, and figures corrected, including plant-height values and ranges, the reported yield range for the check variety, the number of advanced clones outperforming it, claims on specific gravity, dry matter, and starch for individual clones, Table 8 numbering and title, significance-letter footnotes, decimal precision, and spacing errors; late blight severity reporting moved to its dedicated section	✓ Addressed
Correlation Analysis	Missing coefficients and significance values supplied, asterisk conventions defined, the basis for the analysis (individual versus combined years) stated, the near-perfect total–marketable yield correlation recognised as a part–whole relationship, and the link between lower disease scores and higher marketable yield supported statistically	✓ Addressed
Results–Discussion Separation	Comparisons with published studies and interpretive or recommendation-style statements moved out of the Results and into the Discussion or Conclusion	✓ Addressed
Discussion Depth	Discussion strengthened with critical interpretation rather than sequential comparison to earlier reports, including explicit numeric comparisons, relationships among dry matter, specific gravity, and starch, the relation of yield to its contributing traits, comparison of AUDPC values with other studies, appropriately cautious wording on genetic variation and correlation, removal of traits that were not measured, and a limitations paragraph covering the single-location, two-season design, the fungicide application, and the subjectivity of visual scoring	✓ Addressed
Conclusion	Conclusion revised to give a concise synthesis of the findings, to describe the identified genotypes as promising material for further evaluation rather than confirmed superior genotypes, and to note the need for multi-location and multi-environment validation before wider recommendation	✓ Addressed
References	Reference list completed and corrected, with cited works missing from the list added, duplicate entries merged, software citation corrected, author-name formats and species-name formatting standardised, and DOI and volume, issue, and page details made consistent	✓ Addressed
Language & Editorial Revision	Thorough grammatical and editorial revision completed, including tense, spelling of product names, cross-references to tables and figures, abbreviations, and consistency between text, tables, and figures	✓ Addressed

Category

Nature of Concern

Status

Title & Scope

Title revised so that it reflects the late blight component, which is a major selection criterion and occupies a substantial part of the Results, alongside yield and quality traits

✓ Addressed

Manuscript Length & Redundancy

Manuscript shortened to meet the journal's word limit (4,000 words excluding references, tables, and figure captions), with repetition removed from the Introduction and Discussion and duplicated sentences deleted

✓ Addressed

Abstract Accuracy

Vague wording on tuber quality replaced, "repetitions" corrected to "replications," the statement on significant differences reconciled with the ANOVA (including the non-significant emergence trait), and the concluding claim about accelerating variety development softened to describe the genotypes as potential breeding material

✓ Addressed

Journal Compliance

Keywords added, together with the ethical statements and declarations required by the journal guidelines

✓ Addressed

Introduction – Flow, Gap & Objective

Introduction restructured into a logical sequence (global importance, Ethiopian production and consumption, processing demand, required quality traits, current limitations, objective), with overlapping nutritional and processing statements condensed, the research gap and the rationale for the genotypes selected made explicit, a single objective stated, evaluative and colloquial wording replaced, and terminology for quality traits made uniform

✓ Addressed

Study Site & Environment

Experimental site described fully, including location(s), coordinates, altitude, climate, seasons and years, and the basis for the reported soil texture and acidity (method and measured values where available); unsupported statements on pest behaviour removed; Tables 1 and 2 corrected for formatting, units, and consistency with the described cropping seasons

✓ Addressed

Genotype Identification & Terminology

Genotype classification clarified (advanced clones versus the released check variety Burka), the total number of entries confirmed, "variety" versus "advanced clone" usage corrected, table cross-references fixed, and a single genotype terminology used throughout

✓ Addressed

Experimental Design & Field Management

Design of the combined two-year experiment described explicitly (years, treatments, replications per year, experimental unit, plot and net plot size, plants per plot, field used each year, and randomisation), agronomic practices specified with timing and purpose, and the pre-harvest operation described with correct terminology (haulm cutting rather than "dehulling")

✓ Addressed

Fungicide Application & Late Blight Assessment

Rationale, date, growth stage, dose, and uniformity of the single fungicide application explained in relation to disease scoring and AUDPC, with its possible influence on genotype reaction acknowledged; assessment timing and number of assessment dates clarified; AUDPC formula and variables completed; source and thresholds for the reaction classes given; and the CIP (2006) guideline added to the references

✓ Addressed

Trait Definitions & Measurement Procedures

Trait definitions and procedures clarified, including emergence versus flowering, the maturity criterion used consistently, marketable-tuber criteria, bulking rate formula, sample sizes per trait, specific gravity and dry matter procedures, the source of the starch equation, scoring of tuber shape, eye depth, colour, and appearance, and description of any quality traits reported in the Results (such as chip colour and tuber uniformity); methods rewritten in the past tense with consistent units

✓ Addressed

Statistical Model & Analysis

Full model for the combined analysis stated (year, genotype, genotype × year, replication within year, residual), with fixed or random treatment of factors, test used for homogeneity of variance, assessment of the genotype × year interaction, ANOVA assumption checks, R version and packages, conditions for applying LSD, handling of qualitative and ordinal traits, and exact P-values or ANOVA information supplied so that significance statements can be traced

✓ Addressed

Results Accuracy & Internal Consistency

Inconsistencies between text, tables, and figures corrected, including plant-height values and ranges, the reported yield range for the check variety, the number of advanced clones outperforming it, claims on specific gravity, dry matter, and starch for individual clones, Table 8 numbering and title, significance-letter footnotes, decimal precision, and spacing errors; late blight severity reporting moved to its dedicated section

✓ Addressed

Correlation Analysis

Missing coefficients and significance values supplied, asterisk conventions defined, the basis for the analysis (individual versus combined years) stated, the near-perfect total–marketable yield correlation recognised as a part–whole relationship, and the link between lower disease scores and higher marketable yield supported statistically

✓ Addressed

Results–Discussion Separation

Comparisons with published studies and interpretive or recommendation-style statements moved out of the Results and into the Discussion or Conclusion

✓ Addressed

Discussion Depth

Discussion strengthened with critical interpretation rather than sequential comparison to earlier reports, including explicit numeric comparisons, relationships among dry matter, specific gravity, and starch, the relation of yield to its contributing traits, comparison of AUDPC values with other studies, appropriately cautious wording on genetic variation and correlation, removal of traits that were not measured, and a limitations paragraph covering the single-location, two-season design, the fungicide application, and the subjectivity of visual scoring

✓ Addressed

Conclusion

Conclusion revised to give a concise synthesis of the findings, to describe the identified genotypes as promising material for further evaluation rather than confirmed superior genotypes, and to note the need for multi-location and multi-environment validation before wider recommendation

✓ Addressed

References

Reference list completed and corrected, with cited works missing from the list added, duplicate entries merged, software citation corrected, author-name formats and species-name formatting standardised, and DOI and volume, issue, and page details made consistent

✓ Addressed

Language & Editorial Revision

Thorough grammatical and editorial revision completed, including tense, spelling of product names, cross-references to tables and figures, abbreviations, and consistency between text, tables, and figures

✓ 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.