PONE-D-23-23826Characterisation of physicochemical parameters and antibacterial properties of New Caledonian honeysPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Majtan,

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 Oct 27 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,

Filippo Giarratana

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 in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“We thank New Caledonian beekeepers for providing honey samples. This work was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences VEGA 2/0022/22 and the Slovak Research and Development Agency under Contract No. APVV-21-0262.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is 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:

“This work was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences VEGA 2/0022/22 and the Slovak Research and Development Agency under Contract No. APVV-21-0262.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

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

3. Please amend either the abstract on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the abstract in the manuscript so that they are identical.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map image which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. 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.

6. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author,

please improve the paper with all the Reviewer's suggestions/requirements.

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

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: No

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: The manuscript entitled “Characterisation of physicochemical parameters and antibacterial properties of New Caledonian honeys” investigates the antibacterial activity of different honey samples in light of the specific hydrogen peroxide content. The manuscript seems well written, with the English requiring only minor adjustments (considering my knowledge). The topic is interesting and worthy of attention but as it stands the article has some shortcomings that do not allow it to be published.

In detail:

1. There is not a clear link between the introduction and the goals of the study.

2. The MMs are not clear on several points and need to be improved especially as regards the antimicrobial evaluations.

3. The results section shows data for which the methods of analysis have not been described (see subsection 3.1.).

4. The Results section reports information that looks more like discussion than results. This last is repeated several times so I would suggest a massive editing of the article to remove discussions from the result section.

Therefore, I suggest either rejecting the article or major revisions.

Abstract

In my opinion, the abstract does not elucidate well what the authors did during the study. The materials and methods section is not fully explanatory. The authors used abbreviations that may not be understood by a non-addicted reader. I suggest editing the abstract summarizing better all the sections of the study.

Introduction

The introduction is not badly written, but the authors should be focused better the aims of the study which are several and, in my opinion, are not well linked with the information reported in the introduction. I would suggest critically reviewing the introduction.

Line 51: Use another word instead of “consumption”.

Line 57: Improve the connection between this sentence and the periods before and after.

Lines 63-64: I would suggest moving this sentence before the previous period.

Line 70 and 72: Add references.

Line 82: add a reference.

Line 90: it is not clear what the authors mean by “uncover”. Please, improve.

Lines 90-91: It is not clear the connection between this sentence and the previous sentence. Could the author explain better, please?

Line 93: What do the authors mean by “high endemicity”? Please, improve and explain better.

Line 99: Why did the authors investigate the activity of glucose oxidase but they never discuss it in the introduction?

Line 101: What do the authors mean by "honey diluted? Please, improve.

Materials and methods

Lines 107-108: improved this sentence, it seems that the period is missing a final part.

Line 110: please, somewhere describe what UMF means.

Line 112: immediately before or after what?

Line 119: in my opinion, this paragraph does not make sense reported in this way. Improve scribing also how the samples were stored and prepared for the antibacterial activity. Furthermore, report the manufacturers where the bacteria were acquired.

Lines 120: isolates instead of isolate.

Line 125: what does “by laboratories” mean? Improve

Line 124: please, improve this paragraph by reporting at least a brief description of the methods used (“Harmonized methods of the internationals honey commission”) and the manufacturers of the instruments used for the different parameters’ determination.

Lines 159-161: it is unclear what and how was determined. The mic of what versus whom? diluted in broth how? Why? In what quantity? Improve.

Line 170: it is difficult for the reader to follow the article. The method is not well described. Why MHB “or” “diluted honey”? It seems that a part of the method is missing. Improve.

Line 172: visually in which way? Turbidity? Improve.

Lines 178-181: This section should be moved above before or inserted together with the description of the method adopted. It is not clear the difference between MIC and MBC.

Line 184: what do the authors mean by spotted?

Results

Line 206: This analysis was not defined in the MM. Add the methods used in the MM. Improve.

Line 225 legislative criterium of New Caledonia? Or another country/continent?

Lines 227-288: this looks more like discussions than results.

Lines 234-235: this looks more like discussions than results.

Please, rewrite the article so that only results and not discussions are reported in the results section. A it is, it is difficult to follow the results obtained by the analyses.

Discussion

The discussions seem well written and discretely discuss the results obtained. However, considering the need for major improvements in the results and the materials and methods sections, the discussions deserve further revision in the light of future updates by the authors.

Figure and tables

The captions of both figures and tables are fully explanatory and they are both well presented.

Reviewer #2: The work completed on the topic of Characterisation of physicochemical parameters and antibacterial properties of New Caledonian honeys is very applied and conducted in details.

The results and their critical discussions are stronger point for this research article.

Manuscript would be very interesting, if it had some pictures of New Caledonian Honeys samples used in experiments, but that is not necessary

I suggest to use selected type of Caledonian honeys, which are rich in Bioactivities for innovative health care products.

Manuka Honey is sold very expensive in Health shops, because there is no competition with other health grade honeys in the market,

I hope Caledonian honeys would be available in market at a cheaper cost for people to afford the cost, please explore such possibility.

**********

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: 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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviosion 1.pdf

Characterisation of physicochemical parameters and antibacterial properties of New Caledonian honeys

PONE-D-23-23826R1

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,

Filippo Giarratana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: