Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 22, 2024
Decision Letter - Bijay Kumar Behera, Editor

PONE-D-24-07226Comparison of bacterial communities in the Yamuna River (India) and the Mississippi River (United States of America) reveals greatest diversity at the Yamuna headwaters below the Yamunotri GlacierPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Martinez,

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 Apr 27 2024 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,

Bijay Kumar Behera, 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.  Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "OM is a recipient of personal improvement fund (PIF), Winona State University Faculty-led Program Exploratory and Winona Foundation Grants."

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.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map/satellite images 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 (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. 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].”

b. 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/

Additional Editor Comments:

Kindly find the two reviewers comments and revise accordingly

[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: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript, “Comparison of bacterial communities in the Yamuna River (India) and the Mississippi River (United States of America) reveals greatest diversity at the Yamuna headwaters below the Yamunotri Glacier," Manuscript Number: PONE-D-24-07226, is well written and presented.

However, the script needs some more input and corrections. Please refer to the comments below to rectify the manuscript.

1. There is no Short Title to the Manuscript. Assign a short title Before the Abstract part.

2. There are no keywords in the manuscript after the abstract. Assign keywords after the abstract part.

3. The Introduction needs significant corrections and should be written again, citing more recent works of literature. It should also contain more information on the glaciers and deltas of India and the USA.

4. Information on the Mississippi River (United States of America) is insufficient in the whole context. The river's water content quality and the natural and anthropogenic activity involved are also not cited.

5. The materials and methods part is well written but lacks the time in hours of sampling.

6. In the results section, Lines 168-169 with the table, you mentioned sampling sites as 12, but you have only given names for 11 sites. Check the Table 1.

7. In the discussion part of the manuscript, the central functioning of the prominent microbial phyla is missing. Along with the information on abundance, discussion on the functioning of the particular microbe will be more appreciated.

Reviewer #2: The title of the manuscript is not interesting and too long

Kindly modify the abstract section of the manuscript

The introduction section needs to be improved and cite some latest references

PMID: 37239442, 35596862, 32683080, 33178147, 33021988

Line no 54: Reference is missing

Line no 65: Reference is missing

Line no 129-130: Provide the individual SRA accession number

The figure quality is very poor

Need PCA/CCA analysis

**********

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: Sushree Swati Rout

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ajaya Kumar Rout

**********

[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

Dear Bijay Kumar Behera,

Thank you for considering our manuscript [PONE-D-24-07226] for publication in PLOS ONE. Please find enclosed our rebuttal to the reviewers’ comments and criticisms. Further, we have made substantial changes to the text and have included an extra 3 figures.

We have addressed the additional requirements:

1) We have checked the manuscript against PLOS ONE's style requirements

2) We have submitted a PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research

3) With respect to the funding agencies for OM, we state that "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

4) Copyright permission from the author to Fig 1

Rebuttal to Reviewer 1

We thank reviewer 1 for their comments and criticisms. We thank reviewer 1 for commenting that our study was well written and presented.

The following is a point-by-point response to reviewer 1’s comments, criticisms and requests.

1. There is no Short Title to the Manuscript. Assign a short title Before the Abstract part.

Lines 18-19: We have added a short title before the abstract

2. There are no keywords in the manuscript after the abstract. Assign keywords after the abstract part.

Lines 45-46: We have added key words after the abstract

3. The Introduction needs significant corrections and should be written again, citing more recent works of literature. It should also contain more information on the glaciers and deltas of India and the USA.

Lines 68-84, 89-94: We thank reviewer 1 for points 3 and 4. We have made substantial changes to the manuscript, rewritten parts of the abstract, introduction, results and discussion. We have added more information on the land-use in the United States and India surrounding the river locations sampled.

4. Information on the Mississippi River (United States of America) is insufficient in the whole context. The river's water content quality and the natural and anthropogenic activity involved are also not cited.

See above

5. The materials and methods part is well written but lacks the time in hours of sampling.

Line 119: Sampling time has been added to the materials and methods.

6. In the results section, Lines 168-169 with the table, you mentioned sampling sites as 12, but you have only given names for 11 sites. Check the Table 1.

We thank the reviewer for bringing up this inconsistency. We have changed the writing to reflect the fact that there were 11 sites.

7. In the discussion part of the manuscript, the central functioning of the prominent microbial phyla is missing. Along with the information on abundance, discussion on the functioning of the particular microbe will be more appreciated.

Lines 404-411, 491-500: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have added information on the major microbe phyla found at river sites and have expanded our description of Flavobacterium, abundant below the Yamunotri glacier.

Reviewer #2: The title of the manuscript is not interesting and too long

We thank the reviewer for constructive comments and suggestions.

Lines 1-3: We have shortened and focused the title.

Kindly modify the abstract section of the manuscript

Lines 26, 28, 33-52: We have modified the abstract. We have corrected the number of sampling sites, added a sampling site, removed diversity indices for individual sites and added the PCA analysis results including the PCA group diversity indices.

The introduction section needs to be improved and cite some latest references

PMID: 37239442, 35596862, 32683080, 33178147, 33021988

See comments to reviewer 1. We have improved the Introduction. For example, we have added land-use surrounding the Mississippi and Yamuna rivers.

We thank the reviewer very much for bringing these studies to our attention. We have added where appropriate PMID 35596862, 32683080, 33178147

Line no 54: Reference is missing.

We have added a reference at line 66

Line no 65: Reference is missing

We have added two references at line 93

Line no 129-130: Provide the individual SRA accession number

Lines 166-177: We have added all the SRX numbers to the project accession number.

The figure quality is very poor

We have uploaded high resolution figures.

Need PCA/CCA analysis

We have added a PCA analysis (Fig 5) and 3 accompanying figures (Fig 6-8) characterizing the PCA groups

Decision Letter - Bijay Kumar Behera, Editor

Comparison of Yamuna (India) and Mississippi River (United States of America) bacterial communities reveals greater diversity below the Yamunotri Glacier

PONE-D-24-07226R1

Dear Dr. Martinez,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Bijay Kumar Behera, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

According to the reviewers recommendations the manuscript is accepted.

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Bijay Kumar Behera, Editor

PONE-D-24-07226R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Martinez,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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. Bijay Kumar Behera

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 .