PONE-D-20-28738

Effect of harvest season on the nutritional value of bee pollen protein

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

• I have now received 3 reports on your submitted manuscript. Although all 3 are positive and in favor of the manuscript, 3 major flaws have been identified by the referees.
• The first and the most important is scope of the manuscript. The bee pollen and its constituents are not only affected by harvest season, but climate and prevailing climatic conditions strongly influence composition. Please justify these comments or narrow the scope of the manuscript by saying that absence of climatic data and vegetation influence are the limitation of the study.
• The second one is language of the manuscript. It has poor readability. There are numerous 4-5 sentence long phrases. Therefore, get your manuscript copy-edited for language.
• The third issue is the use of statistics. Statistical analysis section is poorly explained. Add different headings in MM section, such as experimental site, sample collection, sample preparation, sample analysis and statistical analysis. Add all details regarding statistics.
• Several tables in results section are without any statistics. It is not obvious whether these were analyzed or not.
• The length of the 4 seasons is not clearly defined.
• Provide ANOVA tables as supplementary materials.
• Conclusion section is too short and poor. please revise it.
• Cross check all references.
• Revise your manuscript in true sense and submit a revised manuscript for re-evaluation. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 15 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

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: I have evaluated the manuscript submitted by Al-Kahtani et al. It sounds an interesting study and relevant for publication in Plos One. It has merit of publication. However, I have identified some minor issues which deserve attention before publication.

There are numerous long sentences in the manuscript. Please submit these. I advise to get your manuscript edited from a native English speaker.

The MM section is poor. No details have been added how the samples were prepared for analysis. Please add detailed procedures for sample preparation and analysis.

The statistical analysis section is poorly explained. Was normality and homogenety of variance were tested? Did authors take harvest season as a factor?

There are numerous reference where authors name must be written before number.

There are numerous tables in results section without statistical analysis. Please analyze those data properly.

Provide ANOVA tables as supplementary materials.

Discussion section is unnecessarily long. Condense it by 20%.

Reference need a thorough rechecking.

For other comments, see attached PDF file.

Reviewer #2: I have question about four season, you have to segregate the period and duration of four seasons ( spring, autumn , winter and summer ) along with temperature , rainfall rate and available vegetation for all five apiaries which were studied. either all mentioned factors (vegetation, temperature humidity etc.) were same or not . In my opinion only harvesting season is not responsible. All other factors should be mentioned and should be same.

Reviewer #3: I have now found time to evaluate the manuscript.

I have some minor comments, which should be addressed before publication.

i. The bee pollen composition is not only altered by harvest season, the vegetation and prevailing climatic conditions strongly mediate the composition. If authors have such data, those must be provided. Alternatively, this could be added as a limitation of the study and planed in the future.

ii. No clear info is provided in MM section regarding bee pollen sample preparation and analysis.

iii. Statistical analysis is poorly explained. The tables in results section include averages as well. Authors must elaborate in statistical analysis section. There are several tables without statistical analysis, these must be analyzed properly!

iv. Discussion section is too lengthy.

v. Please check references twice

vi. Cite the article Duman, M., Mutlu, Ç., Güler, Y., & Karaca, V. (2020). Some Additional Notes on the Relations Between Some Polinator Bee Species and Weeds in Karacadağ Paddy Fields in Southeastern Anatolia Region, Turkey. SSRG International Journal of Agriculture & Environmental Science, 7(1): 19-23. It is relevant to your study.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Muhammad Amjad Bashir

Reviewer #3: 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-20-28738_reviewer.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-28738_reviewer.pdf

Effect of harvest season on the nutritional value of bee pollen protein

PONE-D-20-28738R1

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. The authors have addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers. Therefore, the current version of the manuscript can be accepted for publication in Plos One.

Reviewers' comments: