Comments on abstract, title, references

The title of the paper is relevant and informative. The abstract has 164 words including the keywords. The abstract was very brief in presenting the findings of the paper. The paper's aim is clear. The paper's methodology and findings are well stated. The paper's references are well cited in the narrative as well as in the reference list according to the journal instruction's guideline. The used reference is recent; and appropriate

Comments on introduction/background

The introduction section is clear and briefly covered the already known issues on the topic by using some recent studies on the use of ivy plant as a medicinal plant. The introduction section has only one statement concern with the phytothera-peutical potentials of the Ivy plant. But on page 205, paragraph no 2, in the discussion section, the authors stated (Previous studies attest the antifungal properties of ivy extract against plant pathogenic fungi), so why such studies are not included in the background section??. The background/introduction should discuss all aspects of the use of ivy plant extract as phytothera-peutical agent against plant pathogenic fungi in general and against the selected group targeted by this paper. The research aim (questions) is clearly outlined at the end of the introduction section.

Comments on methodology

Detailed material and methods, describing each and every step in conducting this research were presented in the manuscript. All methods; technology are internationally standardized and renown. The study's variables and measurements were made properly. This study carried out could be duplicated easily in other parts of the world taking into consideration the site-specific characteristics. The only thing which was not mentioned here is the experimental design followed in conducting this type of research. Using ( Completely Randomised Block design) in conducting this research with all treatments and replicates would give better results. It was not clear at all why the authors used different MIC ranges when they compared the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC = 10–14%) of Ivy extract with a synthetic antifungal drug – fluconazole (MIC = 8–30%).

Comments on data

The authors followed the journal style in presenting data. They used tables ( Table no 1) with appropriate units; decimals, etc, but presentation as figures (charts) would present their results and indicate trends better. The used figures which show the inhibition zones ( Fig.no 3 & 4) of the various extract would be placed as additional data at the end of the manuscript. All figures and tables are mentioned in the narrative to some extent properly. The statistical analysis is well done with some unclear minor points in selecting Pearson test or another Tukey HSD test without explaining that.

Comments on discussion and conclusions

The manuscript demonstrates an explicit statement in the discussion section, but almost all those explicit statements were made on previous studies carried out by other researchers that why citing those references appeared in the discussion section. The used references even those ones in the discussion section were 5-10 years old, so not up to date references. The interpretation of the manuscript results neither creative nor focused. As for statistical significance, it was not in the discussion part for the obtained results of this study. but the applicability of Ivy leaf extract as a patent herbal control agent for controlling plant diseases is very high. such a statement was made in the conclusion section and it is an evidence-based conclusion. Relating the study finding to previous studies was made successfully. But here the author mentioned some scattered studies that would be better mentioned in the background section and referred to them in this section here. Authors avoid mentioning any limitation of the potential application of their findings at a commercial level. But in my opinion, using such wild plants as a source of extract for controlling plant diseases might be in controversy with the wild plant conservation effort at various levels (country; regional; and global). But still, there is a great opportunity to pursue research in the future that might help in getting in a compromise with the sustainable use of plants as a natural resource. The Conclusion was clear, so we can build on it despite the statement of the importance of the find that was made in the discussion part