Identification of potential vulnerable points and paths of contamination in the Dutch broiler meat trade network

Shuai Hao; Ayalew Kassahun; Yamine Bouzembrak; Hans Marvin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233376

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 23, 2020
14 Apr 2020 Decision Letter - Arda Yildirim, Editor PONE-D-20-02018 Identification of potential vulnerable points and paths of contamination in the Dutch broiler meat trade network PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kassahun, 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. Manuscript lacks in the quality of preparation. I agree with reviewers, and authors should improve the manuscript. Please review the referee comments and make your peer revision. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 29 2020 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 rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. 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, Arda Yildirim, Ph.D. 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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. Additional Editor Comments: This manuscript is well-designed work. It is necessary to improve the manuscript by examining the questions that need to be clarified in a way. For your guidance, you can check the reviewers' comments. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work. [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: Authors described broiler poultry meat chain as a complex and therefore susceptible to many potential contaminations that may occur. To ensure a safe product for the consumer, an efficient traceability system is required that enables a quick and efficient identification of the potential sources of contamination and proper implementation of mitigation actions. In this study authors described and explored the use of graph theory to construct a food supply chain network for the broiler poultry meat supply chain in the Netherlands and tested it as a traceability system. The first steps which have been taken by the authors were building the graph, with the broiler breeder farms, broiler farms, slaughterhouses, processors, and retailers. Authors also described carefully the capacity data, production volume, trade volumes of each supply chain actor were gathered from various sources. The trade relationships between the supply chain actors were collected and the missing relationships were estimated using the gravity model. In addition, authors computed trade density to get insight into the complexity of sub networks. Author described the critical nodes at each stage of the Dutch broiler meat supply chain and verified obtained results with a domain expert of the Dutch poultry industry and literature. The results indicated that processors with own slaughtering facility were the most critical points in the broiler meat supply chain. Modelling the broiler meat trade network have been presented by using QGIS software. The schematic representation of the analysed broiler meat supply chain and broiler meat trade network have been presented. From my point of view the food and the presence of contaminants concerning work is an interesting compendium of making consumers aware of how easily it is possible to contaminate the Dutch broiler meat trade. Besides the cognitive value, the manuscript has meritum value. I am definitely in favor of publishing this manuscript in PLOS one journal. Reviewer #2: The authors have built the track-and-trace system in Dutch broiler meat using graph theory to identify the potential contamination sources and critical paths. The manuscript is well structured and reports a very interesting study with valuable results, and some changes are suggested. Minor comments: Line 7: Number of affiliation is wrong Line 20: modeled (UK past participle) should be changed to modeled (USA past participle) Line 22: sub networks should be changed into sub-networks all through the manuscript. Line 329: Pinior et al.: you miss the no. of reference -The discussion needs to be streamlined and better ordered ****** 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: Jowita Samanta Niczyporuk Reviewer #2: Yes: Nagah Arafat [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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-02018.doc https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233376.r001
Revision 1
28 Apr 2020 Author Response Response to reviewers Below are extracted comments together with our answers. 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Response: Thank you. 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Response: Thank you. 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Response: Thank you. 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Response: Thank you. 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Response: Thank you. 5. Review Comments to the Author Reviewer 1: ---------------------- Authors described broiler poultry meat chain as a complex and therefore susceptible to many potential contaminations that may occur. To ensure a safe product for the consumer, an efficient traceability system is required that enables a quick and efficient identification of the potential sources of contamination and proper implementation of mitigation actions. In this study authors described and explored the use of graph theory to construct a food supply chain network for the broiler poultry meat supply chain in the Netherlands and tested it as a traceability system. The first steps which have been taken by the authors were building the graph, with the broiler breeder farms, broiler farms, slaughterhouses, processors, and retailers. Authors also described carefully the capacity data, production volume, trade volumes of each supply chain actor were gathered from various sources. The trade relationships between the supply chain actors were collected and the missing relationships were estimated using the gravity model. In addition, authors computed trade density to get insight into the complexity of sub networks. Author described the critical nodes at each stage of the Dutch broiler meat supply chain and verified obtained results with a domain expert of the Dutch poultry industry and literature. The results indicated that processors with own slaughtering facility were the most critical points in the broiler meat supply chain. Modelling the broiler meat trade network have been presented by using QGIS software. The schematic representation of the analysed broiler meat supply chain and broiler meat trade network have been presented. From my point of view the food and the presence of contaminants concerning work is an interesting compendium of making consumers aware of how easily it is possible to contaminate the Dutch broiler meat trade. Besides the cognitive value, the manuscript has meritum value. I am definitely in favor of publishing this manuscript in PLOS one journal. Response Reviewer 1: ---------------------- Thank you for the positive remark. ============================== Reviewer 2: ---------------------- The authors have built the track-and-trace system in Dutch broiler meat using graph theory to identify the potential contamination sources and critical paths. The manuscript is well structured and reports a very interesting study with valuable results, and some changes are suggested. Minor comments: Line 7: Number of affiliation is wrong Line 20: “modelled” (UK past participle) should be changed to “modeled” (USA past participle) Line 22: “sub networks” should be changed into “sub-networks” all through the manuscript. Line 329: Pinior et al.: you miss the no. of reference -The discussion needs to be streamlined and better ordered Response Reviewer 2: ---------------------- Thank you for the positive remark. With reference to minor comments, we acknowledge all 4 comments as valid comments and updated the manuscript accordingly. They can be seen in the revised manuscript with track changes. Please note that what used to be Line 329 in the original manuscript, is now Line 386 in the track-changes version of the revised manuscript, and Line 341 in the clean version of the revised manuscript. In order to address the comment “The discussion needs to be streamlined and better ordered” we have made two set of changes in order to address the comment as described below: - The “Results and Discussion” section of the original manuscript contained the following 6 sub sections; and they are now reduced to 3. The original sub sections were: 1) The structure of the Dutch broiler meat supply chain, 2) Broiler meat trade network, 3) Degree centrality, 4) Betweenness centrality of involved actors, 5) Trade density of involved actors, 6) Literature and expert validation. We have now introduced a new 3rd sub section called “Vulnerability of actors to spread contaminations” which now contains the previous 3 sections (“Degree centrality”, “Betweenness centrality of involved actors”, and “Trade density of involved actors”) as sub-sub sections. We have added text under the new section to explain how the 3 sub-sections (“Degree centrality”, etc) are related to “Vulnerability of actors to spread contaminations”. We believe that this will bring substantial improvement in streamlining the discussion. - We have updated the “The structure of the Dutch broiler meat supply chain” sub-section of the “Results and Discussion” section to bring more clarity to results and subsequent discussion. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233376.r002
5 May 2020 Decision Letter - Arda Yildirim, Editor Identification of potential vulnerable points and paths of contamination in the Dutch broiler meat trade network PONE-D-20-02018R1 Dear Dr. Kassahun, 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, Arda Yildirim, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arda_Yildirim2 Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thank you for responding to all comments and for revising the manuscript. Regards, Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233376.r003
Formally Accepted
6 May 2020 Acceptance Letter - Arda Yildirim, Editor PONE-D-20-02018R1 Identification of potential vulnerable points and paths of contamination in the Dutch broiler meat trade network Dear Dr. Kassahun: 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. Arda Yildirim Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233376.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 .