PONE-D-23-04984Enhancing household Soybean Processing and Utilization in the Eastern Province of Zambia, a concurrent triangulation study designPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Funduluka,

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 pay close attention to all of the comments and concerns raised by the reviewers.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 2023 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,

Emmanuel Oladeji Alamu

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This work was made possible with the financial and substantive support of the GIZ in Lusaka, Zambia.  The GIZ were also involved in the Conceptualization, Visualization and shaping the methodology."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section: 

"I hereby declare, on behalf of all authors, that there are no financial, personal, or professional interests that could be construed to have influenced the work."

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared. 

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. 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.

5. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Please pay close attention to all of the comments and concerns raised.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

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: No

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: Thank you authors. The manuscript is well written and it is important for improving the growth of the soyabean.

- I would request to go through the English language of the manuscript

- Please add the validity and reliability of data.

- Why verbal consent? Why not written?

- Add limitations of the study in the results and discussion section, including implication

- If possible, please link the study with nutrition

Reviewer #2: The paper entitled enhancing household soybean processing in Eastern Province of Zambia, a concurrent triangulation study design though covers good understanding on subject regarding soybean household processing in Eastern Province of Zambia but it lacks defined objectives of investigative study.

The designed query has several technical flaws. For instance, though soybean is rich in well balanced essential amino acid content but it lacks sulfur containing essential amino acids methionine. It is rich in anti nutrients which is a serious matter of concern as presence of anti-nutrients interferes with the absorption of digested nutrients in the human body. Above all, anti nutrients are not completely removed by common domestic processing method. Prolong soaking of soybean seeds and soybean fermentation are two important methods which are being used to decrease the anti nutrients content of soybean seeds but this requires technical expertise which most of the household individuals lack.

In simple words even if soybean seeds yield increases several folds, the consumption of domestically processed soybean products is not adequately nourishing on nutritive grounds which would be a serious matter of concern for sustaining natural health in the Zambia s soybean domestically processed products consumers population in long run.

As far as soybean oil is concerned, maize which is another major crop of Zambia, produces more healthy oil by using technically simpler method in cost effective manner.

Method of data collection in the submitted work is not scientifically authentic and lacks the provision of identifying and limiting the errors which questions the reproducibility of the investigative work

On the basis of above mentioned grounds, I would recommend major revision of the submitted work while addressing the above raised points.

Reviewer #3: Review: Enhancing household Soybean Processing and Utilization in the Eastern Province of Zambia, a concurrent triangulation study design

1. Title: The title is adequate.

2. Abstract: The abstract is adequately addressed.

3. Introduction: The introduction is adequate.

4. Basic Reporting

The English language structure is professional, clear and unambiguous throughout except in few lines.

The authors were consistent with one style of paragraph.

Page 10: The equation by Yamane (1967) is not sharp, do the needful.

All Table titles should have colon after the number before title. For example; Table 1: ……

Thank you for providing literature and references

5. Experimental design

The research is original primary one and within Aims and Scope of the Journal.

Research question is well defined, relevant & meaningful and it stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap. The experimental design was clearly stated. Rigorous investigations were performed to a high technical & ethical standard.

6. Validity of the Findings

Impact and novelty are assessed. Negative/inconclusive results accepted. Meaningful replication was encouraged since the experimental design was clearly stated; rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.

All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.

Conclusion: This should address the summary of the objectives outlined for the study, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results. Conclusions are not well stated,

Thus the authors should recast this.

**********

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 Faiza Abdur Rab

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. Francis Chigozie Okoyeuzu

**********

[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.

<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS One Paper Review April 2023.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review.doc

PONE-D-23-04984R1Enhancing household Soybean Processing and Utilization in the Eastern Province of Zambia, a concurrent triangulation study designPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. FUNDULUKA,

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 submit your revised manuscript by Jul 22 2023 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,

Emmanuel Oladeji Alamu

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:

To improve the quality of the paper, please carefully address the key concerns raised by Reviewer 2, especially the following:

1. information on the evaluation of the effect of various domestic processing methods on the anti-nutrient content of soybeans and the nutritional composition of various domestically produced soybean products. (If these details are unavailable, please note them as a limitation of the study. I will suggest that you include study limitations and recommendations.

2. It would be helpful if the Average Diet Intake Menu Compositions (also in terms of nutritional composition) of an adult (Man and Woman respectively) and a child (Boy and Girl respectively) were included in the paper as a prerequisite for assessing the suitability of the Domestically Prepared Soybean Products, discussed in the paper, for inclusion in the Daily Diet Intake Menu of adults and children while minimizing the risk of Malnutrition in the long term.

3. It is of the utmost importance to include and discuss in the paper the efficacy and dependability of methods recommended for domestic use to remove Anti-Nutrients from Soybean Products mentioned in the paper, after determining their effects on the nutritional composition and digestibility of the Soybean Products to be prepared domestically.

4.It is essential to explain in the paper why Soybean-based Domestically Prepared Products were chosen for study to determine their suitability for regular use over other comparable agricultural products that can be grown cost-effectively and are suitable for domestic processing but lack anti-nutrients.

[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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

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 Response)

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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: Thank you for responding the suggestions. I would suggest to rigorously review and edit the English language.

Reviewer #2: The revised paper entitled Enhancing household Soybean Processing and Utilization in the Eastern Province of Zambia, a concurrent triangulation study design fails to accommodate all aspects of academic concerns raised in my earlier review.

The manuscript lacks scientifically designed objectives of the study besides indicating inadequate literature review on relevant aspects of the topic while over emphasizing on statistical analysis of inappropriate and insufficient data which can mislead the drawn conclusion.

A very important aspect which is found missing in the investigative study was to evaluate the effect of different domestic processing methods on Soybean s Anti Nutrient Contents and on Nutritional Composition of different Domestically Produced Soybean Products. It would be helpful if Average Diet Intake Menu Compositions ( also in terms of nutritional composition) of an adult ( Man and Woman respectively) and a child ( Boy and Girl respectively ) are mentioned in the paper, a pre requisite to assess the suitability of the Domestically Prepared Soybean Products, discussed in the paper, for adding in Daily Diet Intake Menu of adults and children while avoiding the risk of Mal Nutrition in them in long run. There is an utmost need to add and to discuss in the paper the efficiency and reliability of methods being recommended for domestic use to remove Anti-Nutrients from Soybean Products referred in the paper after assaying their effects on nutritional composition and digestibility of the Soybean Products to be prepared domestically.

It is important to discuss in the paper why have Soybean based Domestically Prepared Products been preferred for study to assess their suitability for regular use over other comparable agricultural products which can be grown cost effectively and are suitable for domestic processing but lacks Anti Nutrients.

On the basis of my above mentioned findings, I would recommend major revision of manuscript while addressing the points mentioned in this review of the Submitted Revised Manuscript.

Reviewer #3: The authors have done all the requested and necessary corrections, thus the paper can be accepted for publication

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Faiza Abdur Rab

Reviewer #3: Yes: Francis Chigozie Okoyeuzu

**********

[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.<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments.doc

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review 2023 April.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments.pdf

PONE-D-23-04984R2Enhancing household Soybean Processing and Utilization in the Eastern Province of Zambia, a concurrent triangulation study designPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. FUNDULUKA,

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 rewrite the study's objective in full sentences rather than as a subheading. This is not a dissertation. 

In addition, because you have not yet responded to the comment on editing, the paper requires extensive language editing. 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 08 2023 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,

Emmanuel Oladeji Alamu

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.]

[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.<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

Enhancing household Soybean Processing and Utilization in the Eastern Province of Zambia, a concurrent triangulation study design

PONE-D-23-04984R3

Dear Ms. FUNDULUKA,

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,

Emmanuel Oladeji Alamu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: