https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8798-1136
Peer Review History
| Original SubmissionSeptember 23, 2021 |
|---|
|
PONE-D-21-30741Microbiological quality assessment of five common foods sold at different points of sale in Burkina-FasoPLOS ONE Dear Dr. COMPAORE, 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 carefully follow the suggestion done by the reviewers Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 08 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:
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: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Guadalupe Virginia Nevárez-Moorillón, 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 2. 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 If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references.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. 3. We understand that you purchased food samples from local markets for this study. In your Methods section, please provide additional details regarding the source of this material. Please provide the geographic coordinates and names of the purchase locations (e.g., stores, markets), if available, as well as any further details about the purchased items (e.g., lot number, source origin, description of appearance) to ensure reproducibility of the analyses. 4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "Initials of the authors who received each award: EK Grant numbers awarded to each author: Not applicable The full name of each funder: Europeen Union URL of each funder website: Not applicable The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." At this time, please address the following queries: a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders. d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "The European Union (EU) for the financing of this project" We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: "Initials of the authors who received each award: EK Grant numbers awarded to each author: Not applicable The full name of each funder: Europeen Union URL of each funder website: Not applicable The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 7. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical. 8. We note that Figure 1 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: 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 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/ [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: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: N/A ********** 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: No 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: The results do not support the discussion. The description of the samples should be completed, number of outlets, number of samples per outlet..... The statistical analysis should be extended, certainly in the form of distribution (mean, median...) for a discussion on the level of hygiene of street food, by localities, by type of food... It is also necessary to describe and justify the choice of the hygiene indicators chosen (production hygiene, hand hygiene...) to reinforce the discussion. Comments have been attached I am not an English speaker Reviewer #2: Microbiological quality assessment of five common foods sold at different points of sale in Burkina-Faso The study is important from food safety perspectives where microbiological quality assessment has been focused on five different foods in five regions of Burkina Faso. The study is interesting though the sample size is not big enough to draw a conclusion about the food safety issue in different areas of Burkina Faso. The abstract of the manuscript is incomplete considering the findings as there is a lack of information such sampling localities, foods sampling sites (restaurants or street food), bacterial count (colony forming unit, CFU) etc. Besides, how many samples were contaminated with hygiene and safety indicator organisms? In methods, EMB agar is not selective for only E. coli, other gram-negative bacteria might grow. How did author confirm E. coli colony through EMB agar culture? There is no cfu count limit of each parameters tested in methods sections. The results were described partially and no information about the count of hygiene and safety indicators in text. The abstract shows that 11.88% foods are satisfactory in terms of microbiological standards where the results show 24% food samples were contaminated with yeast and molds, which is contradictory. In my opinion, this manuscript is not well organized. We have observed many spelling mistakes and grammatical errors throughout the manuscripts. The following comments should be addressed throughout the manuscript: All percentage data should be provided with number. e.g. 43 (13%) or 13% (n=43). The word ‘satisfactory/appreciation was used in multiple places of the manuscript but there is no definition of it. Is it according to international food safety criteria or guidelines? The sample collection method was not described in the manuscript, only the sites of collection and sample types were mentioned. In line 20, 101 is not required to write. In line 23 & 24, ‘All samples were analyzed under ISO methods’ should be ‘Samples were tested according to ISO guidelines for all parameters. Sampling period was not mentioned in ‘Materials and methods’ section. In line 23, ‘Bacillus cereus were checked too’ should be ‘Bacillus cereus were also tested for contamination’. In line 30, recorded” should be placed in lieu of “record” In line 39-42, there is no reference for “According to……diarrhea to cancers” statement. Line 59: “Illnesses” should be placed in lieu of “illness”. Line 66-68 “In developing countries…..capital is required” is not clear to me. Rewording is required. Drove in the sentence should be driven. Lin 71, not proper style of citation. Suggestion: according to previous study or something like that. Line 78: Common” should be placed in lieu of “commons Line 90: are should be were. In line 92, ‘Figure 1 indicated the sampling localities.’ Should be ‘Figure 1. Sample collection sites in the map of Burkina Faso.’ Line 97, parameters name should be mentioned. And “are” should be “were”. Line 100-101, homogenized in water and again homogenized in mixer bag. How many times you homogenized? In line 101, add time and rotation per minute for homogenization in bag mixer. In line 102, ‘with in’ should be ‘with’. Line 107, what is PCA? In line 108, replace ‘was’ with ‘were’. In line 108, 112, 116, 121 it was not mentioned why the plates with low number of colonies were selected. In line 112, ‘Only the Petri dish’ should be ‘culture plates’ In line 116, ‘Only the Petri dish’ should be ‘culture plates’. Line 124, what is IMViC? Line 128, positive clones or colonies? What is BBLTM? In line 129, remove ‘agar’ after ‘(EMB)’ and ‘France’ should be in the bracket. In line 130, “was used”: should be written. Footnote is missing for table 2. what is m or M? what is UFC? Use ‘CFU/g’ instead of in ‘UFC/g’ throughout the manuscript according to ISO guidelines. What is the use of statistical analysis in Methods section? Application of significance test described in study analysis is missing in entire manuscript. Suggestion: please remove this form methods. In line 134, they mentioned sesame seeds but they are not using any sesame samples. please remove sesame. In line 142, ‘purified on’ should be ‘streaked onto’. In line 142, remove ‘then submitted to’ and add ‘were performed using API 20E (BioMérieux, France) test’. How many colonies were undergone for API 20E biochemical tests for each parameter. Please mention in detail in the methods section. In line 144, “key” and “included” should be used instead of “Key” and “including” In line 145, replace ‘H2S’ with ‘H2S’. In line no. 149 pepton should be replaced with peptone. In line 150, replace ‘seeded’ to ‘spread’. In line 157, remove ‘full stop’ after ‘(Liofilchem diagnostic, Italy)’. In line 175, it was not defined what appreciation criteria is. Line 188, please mention criteria of what? is it food safety criteria according to international guidelines or regulation? which food items were found to be contaminated? Line 194, it is difficult to say pathogenic e. coli without performing molecular test like PCR. In Table 3, data for all samples is not necessary to present in details. Data could be presented graphically. Title of Table 3 is not complete, it should be more elaborative. In line 205, “one sample” should be written instead of “sample one” Line 210, what do mean by “the milk samples represent the highest percentage i.e., 42.57%”. In line no. 211 of result section “record” should be “recorded” Line 217, how 11.88% food samples were satisfactory where 24.7% were contaminated with yeast and molds. Reference missing in the statement “Total….wind” from line 232-234 . Line 235, 105 up to109 should be 105 to109 Line 236, [24] report that…. This is not appropriate style of citing. Suggestion: according to previous report or something like that. In line no 239 of discussion section “Foods samples” should be “food samples”. In line 239, it should be written Except instead of Excepted In line 247, it will be 6.93% and 9.90%. entire manuscripts had these errors. Line 250, Coliforms should be coliforms. Entire manuscripts show percentage of satisfactory or appreciation. Number of samples found to be contaminated should be mentioned in the parentheses along with %. Line 253, signifies should be signify. Line 254, According to [6] is not proper style of referencing. There was no reference against the statement “That should…..other studies”; line 241-242. The rationale behind the statement “That suggest the …..pathogens” (line 251-252) was not clear. Unit of the count was missing in line 262 after 2.6×102 In line 269 it should be written, they appear to be present in higher number…. In line 277, it should be written “previous studies find out….” In line 284, it will be 9.30%. Line 284 and 287, either word or number should be written. Ex. Four or 4. No need to write both. Line 290, expertise..? Line 317-319: The statement “A void that was necessary…. areas and urban center” is not clear. Line 324-326: too ambitious conclusion which is difficult to evaluate from this study findings. Suggestions: removed. They have stated “One might believe that the advent of covid-19 that has profoundly destabilized developing countries people and fundamentally changed their habits and behaviors might have contributed to reduce the contamination of food through handling.” from line 300-302, but they don't have any data to compare with the situation before covid 19. ------------The End----------- ********** 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. Mohammed Badrul Amin [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 |
|
Microbiological quality assessment of five common foods sold at different points of sale in Burkina-Faso PONE-D-21-30741R1 Dear Dr. COMPAORE, 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, Guadalupe Virginia Nevárez-Moorillón, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
| Formally Accepted |
|
PONE-D-21-30741R1 Microbiological quality assessment of five common foods sold at different points of sale in Burkina-Faso Dear Dr. Compaore: 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. Guadalupe Virginia Nevárez-Moorillón 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 .