PONE-D-21-23819

Does age matter? - Efficiency of mechanical food break down in Tupaia belangeri at different ages

Dr. Achim Hermann Schwermann

Dear Dr. Schwermann,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing in regards to the recent withdrawal of your PLOS ONE manuscript, PONE-D-21-23819 "Does age matter? - Efficiency of mechanical food break down in Tupaia belangeri at different ages." I apologize for any confusion the withdrawal may have caused you. Your extension request had been missed by our staff, therefore your manuscript was mistakenly withdrawn.

Your manuscript has now been reinstated and returned to the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder in your Editorial Manager account. Please resubmit your manuscript files when your are ready.

Your resubmission is due on Oct 08 2021 11:59PM.

Please do not hesitate to contact us at plosone@plos.org if you have any queries. Thank you, and have a great day.

With best wishes,

Arianna Casabonne

Staff

PLOS ONE

PONE-D-21-23819R1Does age matter? - Efficiency of mechanical food break down in Tupaia belangeri at different agesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Schwermann,

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.

In this revised version, please provide your original data and more information or justification about your methods (use of 'individual' as a random factor, age categories used instead of exact age, description of mean particle size per sample). You will also find several language corrections in the attached file.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 17 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:

• 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: 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,

Cyril Charles

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.

[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)

**********

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: No

**********

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: PONE-D-21-23819R1

reviewed by Marcus Clauss, Zurich

This manuscript describes the particle sizes in faeces of Tupaia of different ages fed with mealworms. The results show that younger animals have more and smaller, and senile animals less and larger particles in their faeces. While this is an indication of an effect of tooth wear, the authors correctly discuss that it could be an effect of different chewing behaviour. The approach is sound and the results are - for me - exciting.

The original data is not given, which is not acceptable nowadays in my view.

There are some language issues with the text (e.g., the German "probe" is often used instead of "sample"), and in particular consistency across references is not good (e.g., supplementary tables have different labels in the main text compared to the attached supplements).

Tables - both in the main text and in the excel supplement - are not given in standard layout quality - authors, please take care to provide properly layouted tables with legends in the next version.

A lot of the wording in the methods and discussion remains unclear. E.g., in the methods, it is mentioned thhat 'individual' is used as a random factor in the mixed models, but in order for thhat to make sense, one should mention that several faecal samples were taken per individual. I made a lot of comments in that respect in the attached word file.

The discussion often contradicts the results - see the comments - this must be corrected. Also, there are some redundancies in the discussion.

In terms of methods, my main question is - these are breeding-colony-animals, so the eact age should be known - whhy was age not investigated as a covariable rather than making "categories". This can be justified - e.g. if the effect of age was clearly not linear - but at least plots where x=age and y=proportion of very small and very large particles should be given. If these plots show non-linear trends that are difficult to analyse, then making age categories is particularly justified.

Fig. 1 should be replaced by a photo of a Tupaia tooth.

The description of mean particle size per sample is lacking (just the mean of all counted prticles?) - and Table 1 should provide both, length in mm and area in mm2 for the mean size for a sample.

Please see the attachhed word file for details.

sincerely marcus clauss

**********

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: Marcus Clauss

[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: 2021-09-03_Chewing mealworms_plosone_mc.docx

Does age matter? - Efficiency of mechanical food break down in Tupaia belangeri at different ages

PONE-D-21-23819R2

Dear Dr. Schwermann,

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,

Cyril Charles

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: