Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 22, 2020
Decision Letter - Mohar Singh, Editor
Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PONE-D-20-10713

Eco-evo-devo implications and archaeobiological perspectives of trait covariance in fruits of wild and domesticated grapevines

PLOS ONE

Dear Sir

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. 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,

Mohar Singh, Ph.D. Plant Breeding

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. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3.We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript
  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)
  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Manuscript need to improve as suggested

[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: Partly

**********

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: No

**********

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: Although the authors have done good piece of research work providing the complete insight of changes occurred during the course of domestication of grapevine. But the length of manuscript need to shorten by removing of redundancy and should be presented in concise form.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents the effect of pip shape and size affecting size of grape berries. Though relevant but preliminary and also do not add much new to the existing knowledge. Experimentation lacks uniformity e.g., sampling from wild grown and cultural conditions thereby raises questions on varied effect of soil, climate, pruning intensity etc. Only a single year study

is insufficient to draw valid conclusions thus warrants comprehensive investigations. May be considered as a short communication than a full length paper. Language needs to be improved for more clarity and ambiguity be removed.

**********

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: No

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.

Revision 1

Data availability:

>>> We made the datasets used in this study available in figshare. The reserved doi (doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12696602) has been properly cited in the MS and will be active upon final acceptance. For now on, they can be accessed through this private link: https://figshare.com/s/959e803083001862ef3d

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: Partly

>>> We hope that the changes made now make the MS fully meet PLoS One standards.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

>>> The MS has been written by a non-native (myself) but reviewed before the initial submission, and rereviewed now.

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: Although the authors have done good piece of research work providing the complete insight of changes occurred during the course of domestication of grapevine. But the length of manuscript need to shorten by removing of redundancy and should be presented in concise form.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presents the effect of pip shape and size affecting size of grape berries. Though relevant but preliminary and also do not add much new to the existing knowledge. Experimentation lacks uniformity e.g., sampling from wild grown and cultural conditions thereby raises questions on varied effect of soil, climate, pruning intensity etc. Only a single year study

is insufficient to draw valid conclusions thus warrants comprehensive investigations. May be considered as a short communication than a full length paper. Language needs to be improved for more clarity and ambiguity be removed.

>>> The two reviewers agree about the length of the paper and asked to shorten it. We followed their advice and removed ~600 words (>12%) of the main MS body and did our best to keep it intelligible yet to make it more concise.

>>> The reviewers disagree about the novelty of the results brought here. The reviewer n°2 stated that they "do not add much new to the existing knowledge".

We here disentangle many completely new aspects of the complex interplay between grapevine biology, development, and domestication using the pip and the berry forms as entry points. It is absolutely true that some long-known patterns (eg the shape difference between the wild and domesticated types) are not revealed but confirmed here, yet on a larger and more representative dataset. These totally new results presented here were presented as preliminary steps towards testing possible (and long lasted) biases in archaeobotanical inference such as the effect of the number of pips in a berry on their forms.

The reviewer n°2 also states that "sampling from wild grown and cultural conditions thereby raises questions on varied effect of soil, climate, pruning intensity etc.".

Differences indeed exist and that is exactly what we were looking for. For the analyzed traits, our results indicate that, half of what was supposed to be a "domestication gap" seems to be caused by cultivation.

We tempered a few statements but we have the feeling that the new questions brought by our findings are presented as promising perspectives, not definitive conclusions. It the Editor has the feeling our Discussion should be tempered once again, we will be happy to do it.

We hope that the changes made improve our manuscript and now fully satisfy both the reviewers and the editors.

Yours sincerely

Vincent Bonhomme

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Mohar Singh, Editor

Eco-evo-devo implications and archaeobiological perspectives of trait covariance in fruits of wild and domesticated grapevines

PONE-D-20-10713R1

Dear Sir,

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,

Mohar Singh, Ph.D. Plant Breeding

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Accepted

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mohar Singh, Editor

PONE-D-20-10713R1

Eco-evo-devo implications and archaeobiological perspectives of trait covariance in fruits of wild and domesticated grapevines

Dear Dr. Bonhomme:

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. Mohar Singh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .