Peer Review History
Original SubmissionNovember 22, 2021 |
---|
PONE-D-21-36760Multivariate Characterization of Morpho-biometric Traits of Indigenous Helmeted Guinea Fowl (Numida meleagris) in NigeriaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yakubu, 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. There are a lot of careless mistakes in the manuscript and the whole manuscript shall be reviewed by the authors carefully. Specifically the main problem found in the manuscript is related to the some aspects of methodology, statistical analysis and editing style. Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 13 2022 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 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: 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, Arda Yildirim, 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional details regarding participant consent from the owners of the animals. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript: “The study received financial assistance from the competitive National Research Fund of the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria through grant no TEF/DR&D/CE/NRF/UNI/ABEOKUTA/ STI/VOL.1.” We note that you have provided funding information within the Acknowledgements Section. Please note that 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: “The following authors: AY, MW, AJS, AOA, MAP, OHO, OAO, OOA, CIU,AO, OAA received funding through grant no TEF/DR&D/CE/NRF/UNI/ABEOKUTA/ STI/VOL.1. from the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND) of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (https://tetfundserver.com/). 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. Additional Editor Comments: I have finally received the experts' comments. As you can see below both found your research interesting but with some flaws that do not allow me to recommend it for publication in its current form, especially reviewer#2 comments. I suggest then to revise/amend the paper according to the reviewers' comments and resubmit for a second round of revision. Please note that in its current state, the level of English throughout your manuscript does not meet the journal’s required standard. You may wish to ask a native speaker to check your manuscript for grammar, style and syntax, or use the professional language editing options. The MS should be presented according to guidelines for authors of Plos One. 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 http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf For your guidance, you can check the reviewers' comments. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work. [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: No Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Reviewer #3: 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: No 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: No Reviewer #3: 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: Quantitate analyses were done to describe and categorize the Guinea fowl characteristics. The standard of writing should be re-considered while some of sentences are difficult to understand. This is mostly because of using some strange words like 'veritable', 'embarked'... Please use usual words and phrases instead. What I am wondering about, after all the analysis, is how this result may help the birds producers and Poultry researchers. I feel that the results are more of interest for Zoologist rather than Commercially poultry community. Different ways for analyses were used. However it is not quite clear what was the point to use all the methods. The results of decision tree is not described appropriately. After each method, there may be a clear paragraph about the precision and accuracy of the models and then conclusion about basing results. The references list should be shortened. Reviewer #2: The reviewer read this manuscript repeatedly and carefully, nevertheless could not understand the relationship of morpho-biometric trait of the guinea fowl and "agro-ecology", which are the subjects of this manuscript. The term "agro-ecology" which was used a lot in this manuscript, seems to be less specific and obscure the context of the entire manuscript. Materials and methods lack a description of procedures that provide objective reproducibility. Please describe the process concretely for the materials and methods, and organize the results and considerations in the order in which the materials and methods are described. In particular, there is no concrete description necessary to understand how to use statistical software and what analysis results lead to what conclusions. Please unify the terms used in a unique sense. Other points the reviewer noticed are as follows. The reviewer could not open and view the File of Data 1-Qualitative. Line 80: This sentence seems to indicate the purpose of the current study, but I don't understand what "qualitative traits" mean. Also, does "liner body measurement" mean measurement of specific body parts? For example, does it mean "The current study aimed to find morphological differences in Nigerian guinea fowl based on specific quantitative indicators."? Line 95: What does “the relative availability of indigenous” mean objectively in this study? Also, is the "ease of data collection" appropriate as a research design for scientific verification? Line 115: The reviewer suspected that the following points regarding the sampling may affect the results of the statistical analysis: differences in the number of bird samples extracted from each of the three defined zones, the difference of male-female ratio, the individual willingness to participate. Please explain to get rid of these concerns. Line 116: Please do not omit "zone". Line 117: Is "270 birds" correct for "290 birds"? Line 180: It can be read from the context that the zone division described by the term “the three agro-echological zone” means the three zones shown in lines 94-95. However, for more contextual clarity, the reviewer recommended defining that “the three agro-echological zones” are the three zones shown on lines 94-95. Line 194: Please write the CHAID abbreviation first. Reviewer #3: Comments to the Author The manuscript entitled " Multivariate Characterization of Morpho-biometric Traits of Indigenous Helmeted Guinea Fowl (Numida meleagris) in Nigeria" represents a considerable amount of work. The following comments need to be addressed before the manuscript is suitable for publication in Plos One Journal. Line 42: Please change Inspite of to In spite of Line 117: There is wrong in total number of birds…..290 birds (80 males and 190 females) Line 128: (Guinea fowl) please make the same form for Guinea fowl throughout the manuscript. Because in some parts, you write guinea fowl. ********** 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: Hamed Ahmadi Reviewer #2: No 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. |
Revision 1 |
PONE-D-21-36760R1 Multivariate Characterisation of Morpho-biometric Traits of Indigenous Helmeted Guinea Fowl ( Numida meleagris ) in Nigeria PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Yakubu, 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. It needs minor changes for the details of the purpose of the study method in the trial and the answer to the question of which bird communities are useful for further genetic reproduction. You could also access and add recent papers on guinea fowls that could contribute greatly. Thanks for sincerely and thoroughly considering and attending to the comments and concerns. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 12 2022 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 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: 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, Arda Yildirim, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear Authors, in your research, in which you used 74 references, you could also access and add recent papers on guinea fowls that could contribute greatly. Thanks for sincerely and thoroughly considering and attending to the comments and concerns. Best Regards, Arda Yıldırım [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: 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: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #3: 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: No Reviewer #3: 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: My main concern mentioned in first round of review is still exist: ''Different ways for analyses were used. However it is not quite clear what was the point to use all the methods.''. Simply, in this manuscript, there are several methods of data clustering used for handling a relatively small data set. As you know each of methods produced results for characterizing Guinea fowl. Generalization of the results are limited because we actually do not know about goal of using each methods. Sorry but I can say this is a simple data analysis using several algorithm that produced unclear results. Answer to the question like which community of birds are useful for further genetic breeding was your priority in this study. So with your results there is no such a clear answer to that question. Reviewer #3: All required comments have been addressed by the authors for the Manuscript Number PONE-D-21-36760R1. ********** 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: Yes: Hamed Ahmadi 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. |
Revision 2 |
Multivariate Characterisation of Morpho-biometric Traits of Indigenous Helmeted Guinea Fowl ( Numida meleagris ) in Nigeria PONE-D-21-36760R2 Dear Dr. Yakubu, 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, Arda Yildirim, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arda-Yildirim Additional Editor Comments (optional): Thanks for your hard work! 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: Partly ********** 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: No ********** 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: Checked no more comments. ********** 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: Yes: Hamed Ahmadi |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-21-36760R2 Multivariate Characterisation of Morpho-biometric Traits of Indigenous Helmeted Guinea Fowl (Numida meleagris) in Nigeria Dear Dr. Yakubu: 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. Dr. Arda Yildirim 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 .