PONE-D-20-22979

Post grafting time significantly influences macro and trace elements in royal jelly

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. AL-KAHTANI,

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.

• I have received the reports for your submitted manuscript. You can see that both reviewers are in the view that study is worth publishing. However, they have some serious concerns on the manuscript, particularly for introduction and discussion sections.
• The link of nutrient concentration of royal jelly to human consumption (as concluded) is weakly explained in the introduction section. Your whole hypothesis is based on this, and unfortunately nothing is there in introduction section. Please re-frame introduction section and expand it by 30%.
• There are several redundant sentences in the manuscript. Please delete these.
• The procedures of sample preparation and analysis are weakly explained in MM section.
• Statistical analysis is poorly explained.
• Discussion is too narrative, not logical.
• Please address these comments in true spirit and submit revised version of the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 25 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shahid Farooq, 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[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: No

**********

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: INTRODUCTION: Introduction has been written in well manner. But some discrepancies observed that needs to be addressed.

(1) Write a brief description of Macro and trace elements. Name them separately and explain some importance and nutritional facts of macro and trace elements in human health.

(2) Overall introduction part is too short. It would be more attractive if expanded.

(3) Some more comments in the introduction section are highlighted in attached PDF file. Address all the highlighted points.

METHODOLOGY: Although authors wrote Methodology section well and understandable for but some of comments highlighted in attached PDF file will further improve this section. Authors are asked to go through my comments and improve the methodology accordingly.

RESULTS: The results are very interesting and will help in advancement of understanding of the subject. Hence, few comments highlighted in attached PDF file will further improve this section. Please follow my suggestions in this section.

DISCUSSION:Discussion part is also very short and need some expansion. Although the findings of the results are justified with related literature available but this part can be further improved. Authors are asked to go through my comments in this section highlighted in the attached PDF file and improve the DISCUSSION accordingly.

REFERENCES:(1) Add some references from Saudi Arabia and nearby courtiers. (2) Please cross check that all the citations in the text are present reference list and nothing is missed.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript PONE-D-20-22979 deals with the influence of post grafting time on yield and nutrient concentration of royal jelly. Overall, it is an excellent study and deserves publication. However, there are several major deficiencies, which must be addressed before publication. I have annotated PDF.

Introduction section is small. It dont have any information relating to the conclusion. Conclusion says RJ can be used for human nutrition. However, introduction section lacks this info.

Introduction is short Please expand it by 30%. Nonetheless, study rationale is weak. What is the need to study nutrient concentration is never discussed in introduction.

Lines 41-44 are Redundant, Delete?

Post-grafting must be after grafting, within the manuscript

Give detailed procedures of analysis and sample preparation

The figures must be lettered for significant differences

There must be an ANOVA table indicating df, SS, MS, F and p values

The statistical analysis is poorly explained. Write more details how the authors dealt with normality and homogeneity of variance?

Yield was also assessed; however, title says only nutrient concentration. Yield must be included in abstract.

Lines 128-131 are redundant, Delete?

The info in lines 150-153 must be computed separately, analyzed statistically and table can be added about the relative proportion of different nutrients at different sampling time

To reach this conclusion, you must elaborate it in introduction section. For example, it can be used for human nutrition etc.

Please see annotated pdf for rest of the comments

**********

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: Khalid Ali Khan

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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-22979_reviewer.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-22979_reviewer.pdf

Post grafting time significantly influences royal jelly yield and content of macro and trace elements

PONE-D-20-22979R1

Dear Dr. AL-KAHTANI,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Shahid Farooq, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I have evaluated the revised manuscript. All comments raised during the review process were properly addressed by the authors. Therefore, the current version can be accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments: