What do Brazilian owners know about canine obesity and what risks does this knowledge generate?

Mariana Yukari Hayasaki Porsani; Vinicius Vasques de Oliveira; Ariane Galdino de Oliveira; Fabio Alves Teixeira; Vivian Pedrinelli; Camila Marinelli Martins; Alexander James German; Marcio Antonio Brunetto

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238771

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 16, 2020
13 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Simon Clegg, Editor PONE-D-20-22044 What do Brazilian owners know about canine obesity and what risks does this knowledge generate? PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Brunetto, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After review by two expert reviewers, they have returned some excellent and highly complimentary comments, but also suggested a few very minor modifications. If you could make these minor modifications and resubmit, the manuscript will be accepted without the need for re-review. Please do not worry about writing a response to reviewers as the comments are so minor. ============================== Many thanks for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One It was reviewed by two experts in the field, who returned possibly some of the most complimentary comments I have ever seen on a manuscript review (as an editor and an author) They have made some very minor comments, mainly grammatical. If you could make these minor changes and resubmit, your manuscript will be accepted without the need to re-review As the comments are so minor, please do not worry about a response to reviewers. I want to commend you on a very nice article, and thank you for submitting it to PLOS One I wish you all the best with your revisions Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times Thanks Simon ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 27 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 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, Simon 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 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion/exclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment, c) a table of relevant demographic details, d) a statement as to whether your sample can be considered representative of a larger population, e) a description of how participants were recruited, and f) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place. 3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 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: Comments on Brazilian dog obesity manuscript I’ve been reviewing and writing manuscripts for almost 25 years and almost uniquely over that time period this is a manuscript that I find myself struggling to comment on. It is well written, and beyond some small comments listed below, it feels like a published article. I congratulate the authors on a job well done in my opinion. The ability to achieve a critical mass of dogs in this kind of study is extremely difficult at times but achieved here; and the paper reinforces the trends seen in other parts of the world, as the authors note. The fact that the trends seen elsewhere are also exhibited in a different societal region is important knowledge when we think globally about how to challenge the health condition. Comments. These are comments rather than changes or suggestions in some ways and the guidance of the editors may be helpful in some of them. Line 54 – “estimated at…” This is a very precise estimate of dog numbers, now to the individual dog in fact. Yes mathematically true but do we need to either complete the sum for the reader or to these level of accuracy? Line 136 – why two statistical packages? I am not familiar with these two packages myself – is it a function of their specific statistical tests or merely a difference between authors? Line 172 – I wondered what the median income in Brazil was to gauge the scale of the $ value here, although there was good information presented on income in the tables further down the manuscript Line 173, around the tables of demographic information. This is all useful information on the study but I wonder if, given the almost total lack of significance shown, it is just adding volume to the results section here. Could this information be condensed or removed to reduce the length of the section and improve the flow? Should the non-significant p values be indicated as “ns” rather than the specific numerical value. Reviewer #2: I wish to commend the authors and thank them and the editor for the opportunity to review this paper. It is very rare that I read one as an original submission which is so well written, well analysed and well presented. The tables and figures are excellent and clearly done, the stats look good from my limited knowledge. The information is good and adds to the literature. So overall very well done. There are a few minor (very minor, sorry) suggestions which are mainly grammatical, but they will only take a few moments and I wouldn’t expect to review this again prior to submission Once again, thank you, and well done Line 44- it would (slight reword) Line 54- you talk about the cities dog numbers- are these domestic dogs as pets which are owned, or strays, and are they all included in one? It seems very precise, so is there a dog owner register? Or would it be easier to say around 2.5 million? Line 61- Further, an association between treat (reworded and to an) Line 78- ‘it is necessary to identify their XXXX on the subject’ I think a word is missing where the XXXX is? Line 114- asked rather than ask Line 136- not that it makes much difference I doubt, but purely out of interest. Why were two stats packages used? I am guessing it is author preference? Line 154- compare rather than compared Quite a number of underweight dogs, and this may be worth a study too as to why they are underweight and if anything can be done to help- just a thought Line 169- just to clarify- was the owner the person who brought it to the vet? Is it possible that the male and female co-owned a dog? Or the female brought a males dog to the vets etc? Line 172- is it possible to put some context with the income figure- is that a lot? Line 303- not sure the word both is needed here Line 311- is in an overweight or obese condition Line 329- are important strategies to prevent the development (slight reword) ****** 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 #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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238771.r001
Revision 1
17 Aug 2020 Author Response PONE-D-20-22044 What do Brazilian owners know about canine obesity and what risks does this knowledge generate? PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Brunetto, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After review by two expert reviewers, they have returned some excellent and highly complimentary comments, but also suggested a few very minor modifications. If you could make these minor modifications and resubmit, the manuscript will be accepted without the need for re-review. Please do not worry about writing a response to reviewers as the comments are so minor. Many thanks for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One It was reviewed by two experts in the field, who returned possibly some of the most complimentary comments I have ever seen on a manuscript review (as an editor and an author) They have made some very minor comments, mainly grammatical. If you could make these minor changes and resubmit, your manuscript will be accepted without the need to re-review As the comments are so minor, please do not worry about a response to reviewers. I want to commend you on a very nice article, and thank you for submitting it to PLOS One I wish you all the best with your revisions Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times Thanks Simon Dear Editor, The authors wish to thank you for the attention given to our research. We have considered all the suggestions and comments by the reviewers, which are addressed below. All additional requirements were also met. Thank you once again for considering our work for publishing. I hope you are also keeping safe and well in these difficult times Kind regards, Professor Marcio Antonio Brunetto Reviewer #1: Comments on Brazilian dog obesity manuscript I’ve been reviewing and writing manuscripts for almost 25 years and almost uniquely over that time period this is a manuscript that I find myself struggling to comment on. It is well written, and beyond some small comments listed below, it feels like a published article. I congratulate the authors on a job well done in my opinion. The ability to achieve a critical mass of dogs in this kind of study is extremely difficult at times but achieved here; and the paper reinforces the trends seen in other parts of the world, as the authors note. The fact that the trends seen elsewhere are also exhibited in a different societal region is important knowledge when we think globally about how to challenge the health condition. Comments. These are comments rather than changes or suggestions in some ways and the guidance of the editors may be helpful in some of them. Line 54 – “estimated at…” This is a very precise estimate of dog numbers, now to the individual dog in fact. Yes mathematically true but do we need to either complete the sum for the reader or to these level of accuracy? Author: Thank you, we appreciate your consideration, and based on the review of the other reviewer, we have also improved the sentence. Line 136 – why two statistical packages? I am not familiar with these two packages myself – is it a function of their specific statistical tests or merely a difference between authors? Author: Two packages were used by preference and suggestion from the statistical professor who collaborated with us. Line 172 – I wondered what the median income in Brazil was to gauge the scale of the $ value here, although there was good information presented on income in the tables further down the manuscript Author: Average per capita household income in Brazil was $ 267.97 in 2019 according to IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics). Thus, the value found was consistent with the average income of the Brazilian. Line 173, around the tables of demographic information. This is all useful information on the study but I wonder if, given the almost total lack of significance shown, it is just adding volume to the results section here. Could this information be condensed or removed to reduce the length of the section and improve the flow? Should the non-significant p values be indicated as “ns” rather than the specific numerical value. Author: As these were not suggestions from the other reviewer (who even made some corrections to these results) we chose to keep the information and p values. As the reviewer also mentions that these are comments rather than changes or suggestions in some ways and the guidance of the editors may be helpful in some of them. We chose to keep it, but we are willing to modify it if you prefer. Reviewer #2: I wish to commend the authors and thank them and the editor for the opportunity to review this paper. It is very rare that I read one as an original submission which is so well written, well analysed and well presented. The tables and figures are excellent and clearly done, the stats look good from my limited knowledge. The information is good and adds to the literature. So overall very well done. There are a few minor (very minor, sorry) suggestions which are mainly grammatical, but they will only take a few moments and I wouldn’t expect to review this again prior to submission Once again, thank you, and well done. Line 44- it would (slight reword) Author: We correct, thank you. Line 54- you talk about the cities dog numbers- are these domestic dogs as pets which are owned, or strays, and are they all included in one? It seems very precise, so is there a dog owner register? Or would it be easier to say around 2.5 million? Author: Thank you very much, these domestic dogs as pets which are owned. We chose to say "around 2.5 millions". Line 61- Further, an association between treat (reworded and to an) Author: We correct, thank you. Line 78- ‘it is necessary to identify their XXXX on the subject’ I think a word is missing where the XXXX is? Author: We correct, thank you. Line 114- asked rather than ask Author: We correct, thank you. Line 136- not that it makes much difference I doubt, but purely out of interest. Why were two stats packages used? I am guessing it is author preference? Author: Two packages were used by preference and suggestion from the statistical professor who collaborated with us. Line 154- compare rather than compared. Quite a number of underweight dogs, and this may be worth a study too as to why they are underweight and if anything can be done to help- just a thought Author: We correct, thank you. Thanks for the suggestion, we found it super interesting. Line 169- just to clarify- was the owner the person who brought it to the vet? Is it possible that the male and female co-owned a dog? Or the female brought a males dog to the vets etc? Author: Yes, was the owner the person who brought it to the vet. No, only one was considered as the owner of the animals. Line 172- is it possible to put some context with the income figure- is that a lot? Author: Author: Average per capita household income in Brazil was $ 267.97 in 2019 according to IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics). Thus, the value found was consistent with the average income of the Brazilian. Line 303- not sure the word both is needed here Author: We correct, thank you. Line 311- is in an overweight or obese condition Author: We correct, thank you. Line 329- are important strategies to prevent the development (slight reword) Author: We correct, thank you. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238771.r002
25 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Simon Clegg, Editor What do Brazilian owners know about canine obesity and what risks does this knowledge generate? PONE-D-20-22044R1 Dear Dr. Brunetto, 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, Simon Clegg, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Many thanks for resubmitting your manuscript to PLOS One As you have addressed all comments and the manuscript reads well, I have recommended it for publication You should hear from the Editorial Office shortly It was a pleasure working with you and I wish you all the best with your future research Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times Thanks Simon https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238771.r003
Formally Accepted
4 Sep 2020 Acceptance Letter - Simon Clegg, Editor PONE-D-20-22044R1 What do Brazilian owners know about canine obesity and what risks does this knowledge generate? Dear Dr. Brunetto: I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Simon Clegg Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238771.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 .