PONE-D-20-31879

ETHNO-VETERINARY PRACTICES USED FOR THE TREATMENT OF ANIMAL DISEASES IN NEELUM VALLEY, KASHMIR HIMALAYA

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rafique,

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.

See my comments on file (2020-Ethno-veterinary Paper _Editor Comments.docx)

Please submit your revised manuscript by 30 December. 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,

Khawaja Shafique Ahmad, 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. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 and 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

3. Please upload a copy of Figure 4, to which you refer in your text on page 15. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

4.We note that [Figure(s) 5] in your submission contain map/satellite 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 (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [5] 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].”

2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures 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/

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

6. Please include a copy of Table-4 and Table 5 which you refer to in your text on page 24 and 22.

7.We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

- https://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=ajps.2007.148.152

The text that needs to be addressed involves the Introduction, the caption for Figure 1, and the final paragraph of the Discussion.

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Please see my comments in track changes

[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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: The paper has been revised and following correction are recommended.

1. The abstract is very bulky and subjective. The text in the abstract should be reduced/trimmed.

2. The last paragraph of the introduction section given after the objectives should be shifted to discussion. It is not appropriate to give text after stating your specific objectives. The said paragraph also needs to be supported with appropriate references.

3. A brief detail of climate should be given in the methodology/study area section.

4. The 1st paragraph of the results section should be shifted to the methodology as it is not the results.

5. The tables and figures should be cited in the results text.

6. Authors should correlate their own results to the text given in the discussion section.

7. The conclusion section is also bulky, just like abstract and needs reduction in bulk.

Reviewer #2: Review comments of manuscript PONE-D-20-31879

The manuscript presented the ethnoveterinary knowledge of plants, which is used by the local inhabitants in Neelum Valley, Kashmir Himalaya for various disease of animals. The most important issue is that the manuscript was found to have a very significant degree of overlap with existing articles. I have identified a large sections in the manuscript that seem to be taken verbatim from other sources and without giving proper references to these sources and without identifying the text as a word by word citation.

I dont recommend its publication in the form in which it is presented my recommendation is reject and resubmit, I therefore kindly request the authors to provide a substantially revised version of this manuscript to address these concerns and some others suggestions, which is annotated directly in PDF. Note that not all matches in your report will be of concern, in particular commonly found phrases in manuscripts will be highlighted regardless and can be ignored (e.g., acknowledgments section and technical language in method section).

Some others basics missing which I have found and that in each case are necessary for a sound publication as:

The language is not suitable for publication; the manuscript needs a major English revision before being submitted. Formatting of the paper is very poor. Check the manuscript thoroughly for spelling mistake and grammar.

The abstract is not clear and with many serious grammar mistakes.

Your introduction needs more detail. I suggest that you improve the description in the last lines to provide more justification for your study (specifically, you should expand upon the knowledge gap being filled). Also, write the clear objectives of the study.

The methodology section is poorly organized. No information is available about how the study was design etc.

The results is very poorly presented.

Discussion is not result based, also need improvement grammatically. The whole section has to be revised not only for the language, but also for its structure.

Formatting of tables are in poor order. Please provide voucher specimens number in the table.

The conclusion is overstated, and the major results of the research were not reported.

Critically check your references, some references have missing volume number and page number. Follow Plos One journals guidelines for all references.

There are more annotations in the Pdf, which should be considered by the authors.

Reviewer #3: 1.please shorten the abstract. Such as it went into too many details of the informers.

2.Pay attention to reference 64 in the introduction part. Aren’t they labeled by number orders?

3.Study area in the materials and methods should be clear. I do not understand the necessarity of the first sentence. The investigation was done in a small part of the Neelum Valley. Do they really represent the whole area? If not, you should point out the actual area you covered. Only about a hundred informers were collected, compared to over 1 million population. That is really a small sampling. It would be nice if the sampling area is labeled in the figure 5.

4.To make the best use of the information generated in this paper, I would suggest to compare the medicine with other papers that generated from nearby area in the country.

Reviewer #4: The manuscript is well written but still needs substantial revision and English correction. Author knowledge regarding the study seems to be very narrow and lacks innovative interpretation. More literature study not restricted to study area only but also the Himalaya region is the most. See attachment.

**********

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: Zia-ur-rehman Mashwani

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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: Review comment.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-31879_reviewer.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-31879_reviewer.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: 2020-Ethno-veterinary Paper _Editor Comments.docx

PONE-D-20-31879R1

ETHNO-VETERINARY PRACTICES FOR THE TREATMENT OF ANIMAL DISEASES IN NEELUM VALLEY, KASHMIR HIMALAYA, PAKISTAN

PLOS ONE

Dear Sardar Rafique Khan,

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 significant concerns about the grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript.  Furthermore, many shortcoming still exist in your manuscript which need to be addressed properly. You can find my comments on file (Manuscript with editor comments).  I believe that the manuscript is much more likely to be accepted if it is easy to read and understand. We therefore request that you revise the text to fix the grammatical errors and improve the overall readability of the text before we can reach any decision.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by 19 February 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,

Khawaja Shafique Ahmad, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

After assessing your manuscript, I have found significant concerns about the grammar, usage, and overall readability of the manuscript. I believe that the manuscript is much more likely to be accepted if it is easy to read and understand. Moreover, there are many shortcomings in your study. You can find my comments on the file attached. Your are therefore requested to revise your manuscript and fix the grammatical errors and improve the overall readability of the text.

[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: Manuscript with editor comments.docx

PONE-D-20-31879R2

ETHNO-VETERINARY PRACTICES FOR THE TREATMENT OF ANIMAL DISEASES IN NEELUM VALLEY, KASHMIR HIMALAYA, PAKISTAN

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rafiq,

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:

Address all the comments carefully in attached file (Manuscript_AE)

Please submit your revised manuscript by March 30, 2021. 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,

Khawaja Shafique Ahmad, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Carefully revise and address all the comments in attached file.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[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: Manuscript_AE.docx

ETHNO-VETERINARY PRACTICE FOR THE TREATMENT OF ANIMAL DISEASES IN NEELUM VALLEY, KASHMIR HIMALAYA, PAKISTAN

PONE-D-20-31879R3

Dear Dr. Rafiq,

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,

Khawaja Shafique Ahmad, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Check minor grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript. Also cross-check scientific names.

Reviewers' comments:

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Revised Manuscript-4.docx