Brief overview of the paper and its main findings Generally, the paper is quite normal, no novelty added to the knowledge in this field. The methods align with their purposes, and they are reproducible, so can be replicated again. The findings are supported with the presented data, and they demonstrate the aim of the study.

Please provide a brief overview of the paper and its main findings.

Major and minor points Major points:

1. In the background, although the aim of the paper was declared at the last of the background, but the research question is not clear. The background is not coherent, also it does not mention the gap in the previous studies, so they are going to contribute and add new to this aspect.

2. In the method section, it is recommended to conduct an experiment studying the promoting effect of the isolated fungi on the soybean growth.

3. Regarding the results, Figure 2. which illustrated the antagonistic activity results of the fungal isolates against the pathogen by co-culture assay method, it only showed the plates of the three isolates giving the maximum inhibition percentage. It is better to show the all 5 isolates plates, so the reader also can determine which isolate is the potent one. Also, the name of the isolates or any symbol referring to them not written clearly on the plates, so I do not know which one you select. Actually, the photos of the plates showing that the inhibition percentages do not correspond to the obtained data (87 %), as the distance between the pathogen and the biocontrol agent does not show this great percentage. It is not convinced to me.

4. In the discussion section, "Endophytes may stimulate plant growth and increase yield directly or indirectly (Khare et al. 2018)" this statement is mentioned, but there is no data support that one.

Another point, Stating at the first paragraph of the discussion "Trichoderma spp. are known to have a strong antifungal effect partly because of their production of extracellular chitinase, amylase, and constituent of the fungal cell wall (Abo-Elyousr et al.,2014b)." Then it is repeated again in that paragraph "Chitinases are receiving increasedattention because of their broad range of applications.Many of these chitinase-producing microorganismshave been used recently as an important biocontrol agenta gainst fungal phytopathogens, by degrading the chitin component of the fungal cell wall (Nguyen et al. 2015).",although there is no mention or referring to the data obtained through that paper.

Again "In the present study, the ability of fungalisolates to produce lytic enzymes was tested. All tested pathogens yielded production of lytic enzymes, which act as inducers of plant resistance.", The going back and forth make the discussion to be confusing. So, it is better to mention only that endophytic fungi are reported to produce lytic enzymes in line with your results by referring to them one time.

Minor point: 1. The title of table 4. does not include zinc solubilization index, although the table showed both phosphate and zinc results.

This should be the main substance of your review and should bring up any weaknesses, inconsistencies, things that need to be clarified or questions you have for the authors.

Conflicts of interest

Do you have any conflicts of interest here? No