PONE-D-22-31247Assessing the Quality of Bee Honey on the basis of melissopalynology as well chemical analysis: a geobotanic approachPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mehrabian,

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 June 29, 2023. 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,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

Plant Biogeography and Vegetation of High Mountains of Central and South-West Asia - https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-45212-4, and

A bioclimatic characterization of high elevation habitats in the Alborz mountains of Iran - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00035-018-0202-9.

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. 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.

4. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

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. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Mehrabian,

After this first review round, all three reviewers raised significant issues that prevent the publication of your manuscript at this time. Still, the reviewers indicated that the manuscript has a potential to be published in PLoS One after improvements are considered. Please resubmit your manuscript by June 29th, 2023 or in an earlier date in case you are able to conduct the changes faster than I have previously imagined. Please do not hesitate to contact me in case you need further time or have any other doubt that needs to be taken care of.

Sincerely,

Daniel Silva.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

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: No

**********

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: Review of PONE-D-22-31247

In the article, melissopalynology and chemical analysis to evaluate 22 different honey samples from two main Iranian hubs of honey. Sampling was carried out at two 23 important poles of Iranian honey production, the central Alborz region, and the mountain ecosystems of Zagros in the years 2020-2021. results showed that all honey samples were classified as polyfloral honey. Based on their findings, 57 honey samples (61%) contained the standard amount of pollen. A total of 42 plant families and 55 genera were identified in the studied samples, with 32 the highest presence of Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Rosaceae, Apiaceae, and Apocynaceae.

To the article, I have next comments and recommendations:

• In the article, there are many typing errors, which should be carefully checked and corrected, e.g., in Abstract: you should use 0.08 to 0.05 ppm or 0.08-0.05 and so on throughout the text. Like wise L. 47:…climate of the region…; L. 61:…botanical…;, Table 1: Bignoniaceae L. 98: instead antioxidative should be used antioxidant activity or antioxidant capacity and similar in the all article.

• Latin names of plants should be in Italics through all text and References, e.g., L. 140: Quercus macranthera, etc.

• All applied equipment and chemicals should be carefully completed with the name of the producer, town and country (state) – check and complete the missing date especially in section Laboratory studies.

• In the centrifugation convert rpm to g values and correct centrifugation instead centrifuge(s), where it is appropriate.

• L. 637: 1% ferric chloride…

• Unify Apocynaceae & Apiaceae or Apocynaceae and Apiaceae, similarly throughout the text.

• L. 294 and elsewhere: total phenolic content or total phenolics.

• Figure 6: should be modified, the data on axis x are nearly not readable.

• Some sentences are completely confusing and should be corrected, e.g. L. 336-337:…in the Estonia (Puusepp and Koff 2014). Croatia (?). Our results show…

• The main problem is that the citation system should be substantially redone according to system used in PLOS One, i.e., using brackets like [1�, [2�,[3�, etc. and hence the references they will not be in alphabetical order.

• According to this system you should change the order of references. In References you should apply Italics in Latin names of plants (Prunus avium, Schefflera abyssinica) and bees (Apis mellifera), use the full titles of Journals with capitals of nouns and adjectives, like Food Chemistry, Nutrition Research, International Journal of Food Microbiology, Current Medicinal Chemistry, LWT-Food Science and Technology, etc., do not use Italics in titles of journals (not mixture). Do not use capitals in the name of article – should be e.g., Study of organoleptic, physical, and chemical indicators of honey in Tashkent region. Do not use pp. and p. in references, by the way some articles in new volumes use an article number (one number) instead of pages.

• Books, Theses and Website should be implemented along journals referenced with their citation number.

Here you are some examples:

1. Hailu D, Belay A. Melissopalynology and antioxidant properties used to differentiate Schefflera abyssinica and polyfloral honey. PLOS One. 2020;15(10): e0240868.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240868

2. Alvarez-Suarez MJ., Giampieri F, Battino M. Honey as a source of dietary antioxidants: structures, bioavailability and evidence of protective effects against human chronic diseases. Current Medicinal Chemistry. 2013; 20(5), 621-638. https://doi.org/10.2174/092986713804999358

3. Berberian M.The southern Caspian: a compressional depression floored by a trapped, modified oceanic crust. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 1983; 20(2): 163-183. https://doi.org/10.1139/e83-015

4. Chua LS, Rahaman NL, Adnan NA, Eddie Tan, TT. Antioxidant activity of three honey samples in relation with their biochemical components. Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry. 2013: 313798. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/313798

5. El-Senduny FF, Hegazi NM, Abd Elghani GE, Farag MA. Manuka honey, a unique mono-floral honey. A comprehensive review of its bioactives. metabolism, action mechanisms, and therapeutic merits. Food Bioscience. 2021; 42:101038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2021.101038

6. Hedge IC, Wendelbo P. Patterns of distribution and endemism in Iran. Notes from the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh. 1978; 36(2): 441-464. https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0006003564&origin=inward&txGid=08c1677fbb653bcda02974e2f9bd74ed

7. Kędzierska-Matysek M, Stryjecka M, Teter A, Skałecki P, Domaradzki P, Florek M. 2021. Relationships between the content of phenolic compounds and the antioxidant activity of Polish honey varieties as a tool for botanical discrimination. Molecules. 2021; 26(6): 1810. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26061810

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

The article is very interesting and seems to be balanced and well-structured.

However, I have some suggestions which can help you to improve the work, please find them below:

1. Authors stated in line 105 that “the study tries to analyze the mentioned data in relation to geographical factors.” and they try to analyze this aspect in the section 5. Discussion. However, for drawing conclusions if chemical parameters of honey depend on geographical factors, the proper statistical analysis is needed.

2. The sentence “We compared the humidity of honey samples with the humidity of the areas from which the samples were collected, which shows that the humidity of the environment affected the humidity of honey samples” must be proven by the statistical analysis.

3. On Figure. 6 the font size on the axis descriptions must be increased for greater readability. It is also no clear for me, what is the Loading. Do Authors mean coefficient of correlation?

4. The sentence in lines 299-302 should be corrected. It is completely incomprehensible.

5. Figure 8 – Autors should inform where the reader can find the explanation of codes of samples. On this picture Authors depict results of cluster analysis but I can’t find in the text how these results are used, or which conclusions were drawn base on them.

6. Text must be linguistically and editorially corrected.

Reviewer #3: The information contained in the article is excellent and the research sample is large and varied, but it needs to be rephrased in proper English

Notes attached

- Introduction

- The introduction consists of many staccato sentences, forcing the author to use an infinite number of linking phrases, such as: as well as , Furthermore, in addition, Therefore etc (Rewrite the entire introduction in proper English)

o Line 49 remove( the)

o Line 51 use counterfeit instead of fake

o Line 54 use and instead of as well as and change has to have

o Line 56 (Louveaux (1970, 1978)) Add reference

o Line 59- 65 Rewrite this paragraph (There are many separate sentences that must be linked together and rewritten in proper English)

o Line 73 (SW Asia) It was mentioned here for the first time, so it must be written without abbreviation

o Rewrite the paragraph from line 69-78

- Study area

- Rewrite in a proper English

- Field studies Change to sample collection

o Line 179 What is the meaning of amount of hight

- Laboratory studies

o It is better to put a paragraph for the chemicals and reagents used and another paragraph for the devices and tools used in the experiment separately

o Rewrite in a proper English

o Line 192 Then, remove large …. By passed through

- Line 223 DPPH abbreviation for what? It was mentioned here for the first time, so it must be written without abbreviation

- Line 237( 1% ) Repeated twice in the sentence why?

- Laboratory studies and chemical analysis of honey

o Scientifically rephrased

- Results

o Rewrite scientifically in a proper English

o Add a table containing honey samples names, symbols, and geographical areas

o Line 273 Was in the range instead of was the lowest

o Figure 6 Not clear

o Line 299-304 This part is incomprehensible and needs reformulation

- Unify the method of writing references within the article

- Line 348 Rephrasing

**********

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: Prof. Ing. Jaromir Lachman, Ph.D.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Haya i. Aljohar

**********

[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: Review of PONE-D-22-31247.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-31247_reviewer.pdf

PONE-D-22-31247R1Assessing the Quality of Bee Honey on the basis of melissopalynology as well chemical analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mehrabian,

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 Aug 10 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,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr. Mehrabian,

After this new review round, one of the reviewers still believes your manuscripts deserves a major review. Among several issues, the reviewer believes (and I agree) that you manuscript needs an in-deep review and proofreading. Therefore, considering the issues raised by this reviewer (Reviewer #3), I will grant you a two-month period to deliver the new review for the appreciation of the reviewer.

Sincerely,

Daniel Silva

[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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: Review of PONE-D-22-31247R1

The article has been in part improved; however I still have some little and larger reminders.

• L. 63:..dependent on…

• In the article you used both units: mL and uL or ml and ul. Please unify to one expression of the liter unit – l or L. I prefer mL and uL throughout the article, correct it.

• Table 1: Acanthaceae should be in Bold in the column Family.

• L. 263:..(Fig. 6).

• L. 290:..(Alimentarius Codex)…

• My main comments are about the citations and references, which need to be corrected. Citations of number in brackets: they should be from the start of the article text, i.e., from 1 to 95 and subsequently renumbered in References 1-95. So, References will not be arranged alphabetically, but from 1 to 95; so [1) will be Zimmermann MI ….; [2) Kečkeš S, Gašić U, Veličković TĆ, Milojković-Opsenica D, Natić M, Tešić Ž….; [3) Mehrabian A, Rad MA….; [4) Alvarez-Suarez JM…; [5) Louveaux J, Maurizio A, Vorwohl G…; [6) Louveaux J, Maurizio A, Vorwohl G. Methods of melissopalynology, etc. This way you can continue editing further.

• Another important item is the title of referenced journals. You can choose two different ways - either the full title of the journal or its abbreviation. However, the style should be unique and not a mixture.

• Here you are some examples: Food Chemistry (full) or Food Chem. (abbreviation); Nutrition Research (full) or Nutr Res. (abbreviation); International Journal of Food Microbiology (full) or Int J Food Microbiol. (abbreviation); Current Medicinal Chemistry (full) or Curr Med Chem. (abbreviation); Acta Botanica Fennica (full) or Acta Bot Fenn. (abbreviation); Veterinary Microbiology (full) or Vet Microbiol. (abbreviation). You should follow these corrections in References and choose only one method – either the full title or its abbreviation.

Reviewer #2: I have no comments because the authors have taken all my suggestions into account and have revised the manuscript in line with my expectations

Reviewer #3: ◦ The article need proofreading, especially the shaded parts

◦ The numbering of reference uncorrected

◦ Put all instruments and equipment under instrumentations.

◦ Put all chemicals and reagent under chemical and reagents.

◦ Delete everything marked as deleted.

◦ Line 21: Melissopalynological and chemical analysis of honey provide us useful

◦ Line 57: Comma instead of fullstop

◦ Line 113: fig. 1 Write complete caption, it must identify what’s the red spots.

◦ Line 17: in the period from

◦ Line 122: One sample

◦ Line 123: Remove comma.

◦ Line 123-124: Delete this part.

◦ Line 126: Start with - material or chemical and reagents - instrumentations.

◦ Line132-133: Then, the honey samples were filtrate.

◦ Line 135-140: Rewrite this paragraph. What is the speed and how many round per minutes?

◦ Line 151: from instead of by

◦ Line 156: Start the statement with For pollen identification we used …..

◦ Line 161: Put it under chemical and reagents.

◦ Line 171: add Place

◦ Line 177-180: 0.1 ml of ferric acid (FeCl3) was mixed with 0.1 ml of diluted honey and the absorbance was measured at 590 nm., against Phenol solution (0.09%) which was used as standard. []

◦ Line 185: Add information about this instrument under instrumentation.

◦ Line 190-193: proofreading

◦ Fig.3 alb, c,: Is it actual figure for your sample.

◦ Table 1: Add column for samples name or number.

**********

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: Jaromir Lachman

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Haya i. Aljohar

**********

[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: Review of PONE-D-22-31247_R1.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-31247_R1-H.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: honey article .docx

PONE-D-22-31247R2Assessing the Quality of Bee Honey on the Basis of Melissopalynology as well as Chemical AnalysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mehrabian,

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 Sep 04 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 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,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, Ph.D.

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:

Dear Dr. Mehrabian,

In this second review round, the reviewer believes the MS should be accepted for publication in PLoS One after a minor review.

I agree with the provided criticisms but believe there are only minor improvements to be made before acceptance.

Congratulations on your hard work!

Sincerely,

Daniel Silva, PhD.

[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: 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

**********

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: Review of PONE-D-22-31247_R2

The article has been substantially improved according to reviewers´ remarks and recommendations. To the article, I have some remarks, regarding journal titles and names of articles in References, which can be easily corrected and then the article can be ready for acceptance:

• L. 422: Journal of Apicultural Research; L. 441-442: L. 445: Veterinary Microbiology; L. 450-452: Study of organoleptic, physical and chemical indicators of honey in Tashkent region. L. 551: Current Medicinal Chemistry; L. 554: Nutrition Research; L. 570: Alpine Botany; International Journal of Food Microbiology; L. 593: Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry; L. 598: Palaeontologia Electronica; L. 601: Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety; L. 613: Bee world; L. 626, 632, 655, 672, 675: Food Chemistry; L. 638: Food Control; L. 644-645: Journal of Food Science and Technology; L. 651: Journal of Applied Microbiology; L. 657-658: British Journal of Surgery; L. 698-699: Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity.

**********

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: Jaromír Lachman

**********

[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: Review of PONE-D-22-31247_R2.docx

Assessing the Quality of Bee Honey on the Basis of Melissopalynology as well as Chemical Analysis

PONE-D-22-31247R3

Dear Dr. Mehrabian,

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,

Daniel de Paiva Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: