Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJuly 18, 2023
Decision Letter - Julio Cesar de Souza, Editor

PONE-D-23-22558Development of selection strategies for genetic improvement in production traits of Mecheri sheep based on a Bayesian multi trait evaluationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Thiruvenkadan,

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.

Dear Sir, 

Considering the reviewers' suggestions, 

I request that adjustments be made, to continue with the procedures. 

Best regards,

Julio Souza

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 28 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,

Julio Cesar de Souza, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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. 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://aje.com/go/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:

  

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"No" 

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

7. 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:

Dear Sir,

Considering the reviewers' suggestions,

I request that adjustments be made, to continue with the procedures.

Best regards,

Julio Souza

[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: 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

********** 

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: the paper title as well as the objective is very interesting. the methodology part was incorporated with wisely and correctly keep it up. statistical analysis part were better to do by use latest soft were.

Reviewer #2: Numbers of records used for the analysis should be clear in the abstract and methods sections. Although Table 1 has the numbers of records it is not clear if all the lamb records have an identified dam and sire. It would be clearer to the reader if "Dams (n=) and their progeny (n=) were analyzed. All lambs had identified sires (n=)".

Table 4 - model 2 is missing as is indication of best fit.

Discussion "birth weight" is birth weight a "growth factor"? For clarity suggest "birth weight is usually measured and used as an indication of growth potential"

Discussion "post-weaning growth traits" mid-paragraph. Suggest "Research on growth traits has established age-related increase in direct heritability..." Last sentence of the paragraph is long suggest breaking to two sentences. "The present study estimated moderate heritability values for post-weaning growth traits. This demonstrates there is adequate genetic variability for improved post-weaning growth through genetic selection."

********** 

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: Brenda Alexander

**********

[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

Response to Reviewers

We thank the academic editor and reviewers for the review and decision on regarding our submitted manuscript entitled, ‘Development of selection strategies for genetic improvement in production traits of Mecheri sheep based on a Bayesian multi trait evaluation’ (Ref. No. PONE-D-23-22558).

Response to Academic Editor’s comments (Journal Requirements)

Review point 1. PLOS ONE's style requirements

Response:

• Foot notes and legends under the tables were corrected as per the journal’s style.

• Figure title and legends were corrected as per the journal’s style

• Equations were recreated with equation tools (MS word) as inline equations

• Mistakes in citing the order of the Reference within the text,[38] and [37] are corrected as the order of [37] and [38]

• Supporting information is included as per the style of the journal.

Review point 2. Language usage, spelling, and grammar

Response:

The grammar, spelling, and usage of language throughout the entire document have been carefully reviewed and edited. The 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes' file has corrections marked up. Dr. Moses Okpeku, who is from a native English-speaking nation, has reviewed the content.

Review point 3. Funding for this work

Response: We wish to mention that “the authors received no specific funding for this work”.

Review points 4 & 5. Data sharing

Response: Data used in the analysis is anonymized and submitted as supporting information file along with the manuscript (S1_File).

Review point 6. Captions for Supporting Information files

Response: Caption for the Supporting Information file is included at the end of the manuscript.

Review point 7. Reference list review

Response: References in reference list and text have verified for their completeness and correctness.

Response to Reviewers’ comments

Reviewers comments Response

Reviewer #1: the paper title as well as the objective is very interesting. The methodology part was incorporated with wisely and correctly keep it up. statistical analysis part were better to do by use latest software. The authors are thankful for the suggestion. We used the software program GIBBS2F90 in the data analysis and trust that this software is robust and relevant to the current study.

Reviewer #2: Numbers of records used for the analysis should be clear in the abstract and methods sections – Please incorporate in abstract. Although Table 1 has the numbers of records it is not clear if all the lamb records have an identified dam and sire (do all lambs have identical dam and sire? If not, can we create a different table with number of lambs from the different sire (sire 2, sire 2 etc) and Dams (Dam1, Dam 2 etc)?. It would be clearer to the reader if "Dams (n=) and their progeny (n=) were analyzed. All lambs had identified sires (n=)" (Same as above). We thank the reviewer for critical assessment of the manuscript and their comments and the number of lambs with identified sires and dams, and number of dams and sires used to produce the lambs were included in the first paragraph of materials and methods section.

The number of lamb records used were 2616, 2286, 1578, 1203 and 1019 for BW, BW3, BW6, BW9 and Bw12 respectively which is sired by 226, 208, 183, 167 and 160 rams for BW, BW3, BW6, BW9 and Bw12 and the number of dams belonging to the lambs records were 1044, 961, 814, 701 and 638 respectively.

Table 4 - model 2 is missing as is indication of best fit. The authors are grateful for the observation and the Model 2 has now been correctly entered in Table 4

Discussion "birth weight" is birth weight a "growth factor"? For clarity suggest "birth weight is usually measured and used as an indication of growth potential" The authors are grateful for this suggestion which has been effected accordingly, - Line number 239

Discussion "post-weaning growth traits" mid-paragraph. Suggest "Research on growth traits has established age-related increase in direct heritability..." Last sentence of the paragraph is long suggest breaking to two sentences. "The present study estimated moderate heritability values for post-weaning growth traits. This demonstrates there is adequate genetic variability for improved post-weaning growth through genetic selection."

The authors appreciate the very useful suggestion, which has been effected accordingly, - Line numbers 296-303.

(A.K.THIRUVENKADAN)

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Julio Cesar de Souza, Editor

Development of selection strategies for genetic improvement in production traits of Mecheri sheep based on a Bayesian multi trait evaluation

PONE-D-23-22558R1

Dear Dr. Thiruvenkadan,

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,

Julio Cesar de Souza, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Julio Cesar de Souza, Editor

PONE-D-23-22558R1

Development of selection strategies for genetic improvement in production traits of Mecheri sheep based on a Bayesian multi trait evaluation

Dear Dr. Thiruvenkadan:

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 customercare@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. Julio Cesar de Souza

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 .