Peer Review History
Original SubmissionSeptember 1, 2022 |
---|
PONE-D-22-24409Green Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles from Eucalyptus Leaves can Enhance Shelf life of BananaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Akhtar, 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. Your manuscript is reviewed by two experts in the field. Both reviewers find the work interesting but raised multiple issues which need to be addressed properly in the revised version. The reviewers' reports can be found at the end of this email. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 21 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, Mohammad Irfan, 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 information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why. 3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: a. The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript. b. A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file). c. A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file). 4. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: "The funding for the research was provided by University of Gujrat" Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now. Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. Please include your amended Funding Statement 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: "We acknowledge Department of Botany for funding the research, Dr. Muddasar Zafar, and Dr Tahir Iqbal Awan for their timely support" 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: "The funding for the research was provided by University of Gujrat" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. 7. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 8. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript. [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: I Don't Know ********** 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: I have various concerns before the manuscript can be reconsidered for publication in PLOS ONE. In the current article, the authors studied Manuscript PONE-D-22-24409, entitled "Green Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles from Eucalyptus Leaves can Enhance Shelf life of Banana" Abstract: In abstract (P<0.05) should be written as P=0.05 What are the recommendations? Mention briefly in the abstract section. Keywords: Keywords written should be different from the title section. Introduction: In the first line of the introduction Musa spp. should be italicised. Why the deterioration of bananas during post-harvest takes place…should be mentioned in the introduction section. The introduction needs to be revised so that the hypothesis is explicitly clear. Material and methods: Check the space between numerical values and units to correct it throughout the manuscript. Use a similar pattern of units throughout the manuscript. On page 5, I suggest to expand the silver nanoparticle at once and then using an abbreviation of AgNPs throughout the manuscript. In section 2.6, the morphological studies section mention units in the subtitle of each parameter. Correct the serial number of subtitles after 2.6.1.5 Pulp to peel ratio. In 2.6.1.7. Titrable acidity: rewrite the sentence. For titration NaOH (0.1N solution was used until it turned light pink colour. Not clear. On page 6 Treatments are not properly mentioned. Kindly mention the treatments in a proper way as these are not clear. Mention it as T0 (Control), T1, T2 so on…. Correct the subtitle effect on phenolic content of banana to the measurement of the phenolic content of banana. On pages 7 and 8 starch content, total soluble sugar and protein estimation are represented in which units kindly make clear in the material and method section. Write content instead of contents. Results and discussion section: On page 12 section 3.7.5 authors have mentioned the units of ratio…according to me the ratio is unitless kindly check and correct it. As result in some places, authors have written day 31 or day 32. Make it clear throughout the manuscript. On page 14 section 3.7.8 first line corrects titratable to Titrable. Words having abbreviations must be expanded at once and after that, their abbreviation must be followed. Correct it throughout the manuscript. The discussion is vague. There is a lack of connection between cause-and-effect responses. It should be improved by linking the data and crafting the writing. Conclusion: In conclusion, the authors mentioned five varieties of bananas but throughout the manuscript, I did not see any variety discussion. References: References must be carefully checked and the scientific name in each reference should be italicised Figures: There are so many figures which can be merged into subsections or can be added as supplementary files. Figures 6-10 should be shown as time-based bar graphs with treatments to be able to see the effects of treatments better, not clear as they are now. For clear statistical differences a, b, and c should be added Reviewer #2: The manuscript entitled “Green Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles from Eucalyptus Leaves can Enhance Shelf life of Banana” explained the effects of the sliver nanoparticles extract on the quality, fruit composition, and shelf life of banana fruit. The authors found that all tested concentrations form the silver nanoparticles maintained fruit quality and shelf life compared with untreated fruit. The authors showed that the treatments did not accumulate any residues in the fruit flesh and they suggested that the treatment might be safe for human consumption. The study is interested and can contribute to enrich the literature of banana storage. However, there are some comments and suggestions should be addressed to improve the manuscript. 1- The first sentence in the materials and method “Present study comprehends the green synthesis of nanoparticles from eucalyptus leaves to check their effect on the post-harvest losses in banana and its management” Move it to objective paragraph. 2- In the sample collection part: add the age of the used trees for more clarity. 3- Add the manufacturer and the country for the spectrophotometer. 4- In the part of measuring starch content: what do you mean with hot ethanol? Ethanol evaporates at 60°C. Please more clarification is needed. 5- In the statistical analysis part: add the country of the used software and explain about the PCA. 6- Since you know from beginning that the silver might inhibit the ethylene production in banana, why you did not measure ethylene from fruit? More explanation is needed. 7- Add the significant effect between treatments to the text and as letters to the figure in all parts for more clarity 8- In the part of “3.7.3. Effect of AgNPs on Banana Firmness (N)” correct the typo mistake for “understand” in line 9. 9- It was unclear how the control fruit had the highest weight loss and the highest moisture content in the same time compared with other treatments! Please, more clarification is needed. 10- In part of “7.7. Effect of AgNPs on pH of Banana” I suggest to delete the first sentence. 11- It was not clear to me how TA increased during shelf life and usually the TA decreased by increasing the fruit maturity and senescent. Please more clarification is needed. 12- add the “doi” to all references. ********** 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: Bhavya Bhargava Reviewer #2: 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 |
Green Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles from Eucalyptus Leaves can Enhance Shelf life of Banana without Penetrating in Pulp PONE-D-22-24409R1 Dear Dr. Akhtar, 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, Mohammad Irfan, Ph.D. 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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 Reviewer #2: 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: The revised manuscript has been evaluated . I would like to appreciate the authors for addressing the major concerns regarding this manuscript. Still there are some minor changes which have been added in the attached PDF file. The manuscript can be accepted for publication in PLos One. Reviewer #2: No comment. Thank you for following the comments and suggestions from the previous revision. All best ********** 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: Bhavya Bhargava Reviewer #2: No ********** |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-22-24409R1 Green Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles from Eucalyptus Leaves can Enhance Shelf life of Banana Without Penetrating in Pulp Dear Dr. Akhtar: 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. Mohammad Irfan 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 .