Characterisation and chemometric evaluation of 17 elements in ten seaweed species from Greenland

Katharina J. Kreissig; Lisbeth Truelstrup Hansen; Pernille Erland Jensen; Susse Wegeberg; Ole Geertz-Hansen; Jens J. Sloth

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243672

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 19, 2020
31 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Yi Hu, Editor PONE-D-20-36449 Characterisation and chemometric evaluation of 17 elements in ten seaweed species from Greenland PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kreissig, 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 by Feb 14 2021 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, Yi Hu 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.) Please provide additional details regarding participant consent to collect personal data, including email addresses, names, or phone numbers. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified how consent was obtained and how the study met relevant personal data and privacy laws. If data were collected anonymously, please include this information. 3.) We note that Figure 1 in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish this figure specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission: a.) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b.) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish this figure under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ [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: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-20-36449 Title: Characterisation and chemometric evaluation of 17 elements in ten seaweed species from Greenland. The subject of this manuscript falls within the general scope of Plos One. The manuscript is an original contribution to the field of using seaweeds as products with nutraceutical interest. The interpretations and conclusions are justified by the results. I can recommend the publication of this manuscript in Plos One after major revision. Keywords are missing? Introduction Lines 32-36. Please, add the name of the authors to the scientific names of the species the first time you cite them. Line 44. Please, add your hypothesis at the end of the Introduction section. May be you want to extend your Introduction a bit to justify your hypotheses. Materials and methods. Lines 138-139. Please, provide the name of the restaurants and the sea weed producer in supplemental material. Results Lines 162-166. This paragraph should go in Material and Methods. Lines 167-169. This paragraph should go in Material and Methods (Statistical analyses). Lines 310-311. You haven’t proved this to say: ‘The observed natural variation at a given sampling site is due to different factors, both abiotic (e.g. salinity) and biotic (e.g. fouling)’. You should always write in conditional tense if you have not proved what you are commenting in this sentence and although the text. I think it would be clearer if Results would be shown separately from the Discussion Tables Tables 2 and 4 should be converted into one or more figures including different histograms, where it would be easier to see the differences between species (as you have done in Figure 4. Actually Figure 4 seems redundant with Table 2?). May be Table 4 could be converted in a stacked bar or a circle diagram. Table 4. Please indicate how many grams of seaweeds would include the salad. I have not properly corrected the English writing since it is not my native language. Reviewer #2: The manuscript is fine, and should be accepted after effecting the attached review 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: No Reviewer #2: Yes:** Dr. Millicent Uzoamaka Ibezim-Ezeani [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: PLOS ONE review comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243672.r001
Revision 1
21 Jan 2021 Author Response We would like to thank the reviewers for taking the time to review our manuscript carefully. We have taken great care to respond to each of the comments and believe the manuscript has been improved. Our answers to each of the raised points are indicated by >. Academic editor 1.) PLOS ONE's style requirements > We have followed PLOS ONE’s style requirements exactly, using the LaTeX template provided by PLOS ONE and checking all figures through PACE. 2.) Details regarding participant consent > Businesses were contacted through their official email addresses available from their homepages, and we collected no personal data. The identity of the businesses and the results were anonymised. We have clarified this in the methods section. 3.) Figure 1 – possible copyright of map images > Katharina J. Kreissig created the illustration in Inkscape. The map outline used is modified from the public domain figure “Arctic-umiaq-line-ports-of-call.svg” - downloaded from Wikimedia commons here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arctic-umiaq-line-ports-of-call.svg (Last accessed 2021-01-14). We have included a separate statement about the figure with our resubmission. Reviewer #1: Keywords are missing? > We would like to refer to page 1 of the compiled first submission “PONE-S-20-45496.pdf”, where keywords are listed. Introduction Lines 32-36. Please, add the name of the authors to the scientific names of the species the first time you cite them. > We have incorporated this suggestion into our revision. Line 44. Please, add your hypothesis at the end of the Introduction section. May be you want to extend your Introduction a bit to justify your hypotheses. > We have incorporated this suggestion into our revision. Materials and methods. Lines 138-139. Please, provide the name of the restaurants and the seaweed producer in supplemental material. > We have intentionally anonymised the results. The materials and methods section has been adjusted to reflect this. No personal information was collected, and the identity of the restaurants/producer had no impact on the result (i.e., average portion size of seaweed salad). Results Lines 162-166. This paragraph should go in Material and Methods. > We have incorporated this suggestion into our revision. Lines 167-169. This paragraph should go in Material and Methods (Statistical analyses). > We have incorporated this suggestion into our revision. Lines 310-311. You haven’t proved this to say: ‘The observed natural variation at a given sampling site is due to different factors, both abiotic (e.g. salinity) and biotic (e.g. fouling)’. You should always write in conditional tense if you have not proved what you are commenting in this sentence and although the text. > We have incorporated this suggestion into our revision. I think it would be clearer if Results would be shown separately from the Discussion > We respectfully disagree. We believe that for this article, it is better to have a combined results and discussion section, as there otherwise would be extensive repetition of element concentrations. Also, we respectfully refer to the author guideline for the journal, which permits the use of a combined results and discussion section. Tables Tables 2 and 4 should be converted into one or more figures including different histograms, where it would be easier to see the differences between species (as you have done in Figure 4. Actually Figure 4 seems redundant with Table 2?). May be Table 4 could be converted in a stacked bar or a circle diagram. > Table 2 is a central result of the study. Readers of the article will be interested in these exact numbers to compare with results from their own studies. > However, to also accommodate the reviewer’s great suggestion and as a service to the readers we have now included boxplots in the supplementary materials figure A to provide a graphical overview of the results presented in Table 2. > Figure 4 shows more detailed information about different thallus parts for selected seaweed species. This information is not available in Table 2, which shows median contents of the entire macroalgae. > Table 4 is very information dense, and we do not feel we can represent it appropriately as a figure without loss of overview of the data. Table 4. Please indicate how many grams of seaweeds would include the salad. > We have incorporated this suggestion into our revision. I have not properly corrected the English writing since it is not my native language. Reviewer #2 > We have incorporated all of your suggestions into our revision. They were very helpful. Thank you for your help. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243672.r002
25 Jan 2021 Decision Letter - Yi Hu, Editor Characterisation and chemometric evaluation of 17 elements in ten seaweed species from Greenland PONE-D-20-36449R1 Dear Dr. Kreissig, 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, Yi Hu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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 ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. 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 ****** 5. 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 ****** 6. 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: All my previous comments have been addressed. I have not properly corrected the English writing since it is not my native language. ****** 7. 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243672.r003
Formally Accepted
28 Jan 2021 Acceptance Letter - Yi Hu, Editor PONE-D-20-36449R1 Characterisation and chemometric evaluation of 17 elements in ten seaweed species from Greenland Dear Dr. Kreissig: 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 Prof. Yi Hu Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243672.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 .