Incidence patterns of orofacial clefts in purebred dogs

Nicholas Roman; Patrick C. Carney; Nadine Fiani; Santiago Peralta

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0224574

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 5, 2019
7 Oct 2019 Decision Letter - Simon Russell Clegg, Editor PONE-D-19-22090 Incidence patterns of orofacial clefts in purebred dogs PLOS ONE Dear Dr Peralta Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Many thanks for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One It was reviewed by two experts in the field, and they have both suggested very minor comments, which is testament to the excellent manuscript submitted If you could make these minor revisions, if you see fit, then resubmit it, I can recommend it for accepting without the need for re-review. If you are just making the changes suggested, please just have a single line in the review comments saying so, rather than write a full rebuttal I look forward to seeing the revisions Many thanks Simon ============================== We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 21 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Simon Russell Clegg, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This article is the first broad epidemiological study of orofacial clefts in dogs, providing insights for future investigations regarding different aspects of this congenital abnormality. The only changes required are as follows: Lines 61 and 62 (caption): C) Intraoral view ...; D-E) Extraoral and intraoral views … Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting paper, which is well analysed and well written throughout. I have made a few very minor comments, but if the editor is happy, I am more than happy just to let him have a look at it when resubmitted and then he can accept it without me re-reviewing it. The comments are just minor grammatical things (due to the excellent nature of the manuscript). However, if you disagree please do not feel pressured to change them Well done on producing a very good, interesting manuscript Line 20 and 21- a comma maybe better than a semi colon Line 29-30, a set of brackets may be better than hyphens Line 41- you say useful models of diseases- maybe expand on which diseases? Line 49- a comma, or brackets may be better than a hyphen Line 86- a comma may work better than a semi-colon Line 111- if a question queried information that could …etc- I am not quite sure that I follow this sentence so could it be reworded somehow? Line 115- of instead of or maybe? Line 121- no capital needed for internet Line 156- maybe to determine if a biological interaction between …. Line 167- if a significant statistical interaction ….. Line 191- maybe a new sentence instead of a semi colon? Line 202- calculated may be better than tabulated for the incidence? Line 205- I wondered if having the values in for the OR for the different breeds may help- but may make it less clear? I can leave that to your judgement Lines 207-209- the line starting relatively few cases of …. Is a little unclear- maybe consider revising it? Throughout- should breed names be capitalised? Line 245- maybe a comma after interaction Line 252- …incorporating sex found a statistically significant ….. Paragraph 277-285- you talk about rations in other studies, could you put an accurate one from your study in here? Line 292- I am not a fan of using our, us, we etc in scientific writing Line 306- does this fit with the evolutionary theory for the different dog breeds? Line 341- which appear not to be (may sound better) Line 342- on the other hand sounds a bit colloquial, maybe alternatively? Paragraph 363- Is the geographic issue associated with breeds being associated with certain parts of the USA? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Prof. Enio Moura Service of Medical Genetics Course of Veterinary Medicine School of Life Sciences Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR) Curitiba, PR, Brazil Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224574.r001
Revision 1
14 Oct 2019 Author Response Reviewer #1: This article is the first broad epidemiological study of orofacial clefts in dogs, providing insights for future investigations regarding different aspects of this congenital abnormality. The only changes required are as follows: Lines 61 and 62 (caption): C) Intraoral view ...; D-E) Extraoral and intraoral views … Response: Thank you very much for reviewing our work and noticing the error in the Figure 1 legend. We have revised the it accordingly. Reviewer #2: This is a very interesting paper, which is well analysed and well written throughout. I have made a few very minor comments, but if the editor is happy, I am more than happy just to let him have a look at it when resubmitted and then he can accept it without me re-reviewing it. The comments are just minor grammatical things (due to the excellent nature of the manuscript). However, if you disagree please do not feel pressured to change them Well done on producing a very good, interesting manuscript Response: Many thanks for the thoughtful comments and meticulous review of our work. Line 20 and 21- a comma maybe better than a semi colon Response: Change made as suggested. Line 29-30, a set of brackets may be better than hyphens Response: Change made as suggested. Line 41- you say useful models of diseases- maybe expand on which diseases? Response: Change made as suggested. Line 49- a comma, or brackets may be better than a hyphen Response: Change made as suggested. Line 86- a comma may work better than a semi-colon Response: Change made as suggested. Line 111- if a question queried information that could …etc- I am not quite sure that I follow this sentence so could it be reworded somehow? Response: Change made as suggested. Line 115- of instead of or maybe? Response: Change made as suggested. Line 121- no capital needed for internet Response: We kept “Internet” based on the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Line 156- maybe to determine if a biological interaction between …. Response: Change made as suggested. Line 167- if a significant statistical interaction ….. Response: Change made as suggested. Line 191- maybe a new sentence instead of a semi colon? Response: Change made as suggested. Line 202- calculated may be better than tabulated for the incidence? Response: Change made as suggested. Line 205- I wondered if having the values in for the OR for the different breeds may help- but may make it less clear? I can leave that to your judgement Response: Change made as suggested. Lines 207-209- the line starting relatively few cases of …. Is a little unclear- maybe consider revising it? Response: Change made as suggested. Throughout- should breed names be capitalised? Response: Change made as suggested. Line 245- maybe a comma after interaction Response: Change made as suggested. Line 252- …incorporating sex found a statistically significant ….. Response: Change made as suggested. Paragraph 277-285- you talk about rations in other studies, could you put an accurate one from your study in here? Response: Change made as suggested. Line 292- I am not a fan of using our, us, we etc in scientific writing Response: Change made as suggested. Line 306- does this fit with the evolutionary theory for the different dog breeds? Response: Change made as suggested. Line 341- which appear not to be (may sound better) Response: Change made as suggested. Line 342- on the other hand sounds a bit colloquial, maybe alternatively? Response: Change made as suggested. Paragraph 363- Is the geographic issue associated with breeds being associated with certain parts of the USA? Response: Change made as suggested. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Point by point response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224574.r002
17 Oct 2019 Decision Letter - Simon Russell Clegg, Editor Incidence patterns of orofacial clefts in purebred dogs PONE-D-19-22090R1 Dear Dr. Peralta We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, Simon Russell Clegg, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Many thanks for resubmitting your manuscript to PLOS One, and for the detailed response to reviewers As you have responded to the comments, I have recommended your article be accepted for publication I wish to thank you for your efforts and for submitting a very interesting manuscript I wish you all the best for your future research and will keep an eye out for future papers from your group With very best wishes Simon Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224574.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Oct 2019 Acceptance Letter - Simon Russell Clegg, Editor PONE-D-19-22090R1 Incidence patterns of orofacial clefts in purebred dogs Dear Dr. Peralta: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Simon Russell Clegg Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224574.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .