Peer Review History
Original SubmissionJanuary 6, 2024 |
---|
PONE-D-24-00715Evaluation of pregnancy associated glycoproteins assays for on farm determination of pregnancy status in beef cattlePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Perry, 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. Two experts have reviewed your manuscript. They both have raised some moderate to major concerns. I concur with their view and invite you to address all their concerns by revising your manuscript accordingly. Please note that reviewer #1 has appended their comments in an attached file. The file should be attached to this email but can also be accessed through the editorial management portal. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 03 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:
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, Angel Abuelo, DVM, MRes, MSc, PhD, DABVP (Dairy), DECBHM 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 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. 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. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. [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: I Don't Know ********** 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: Overall, the manuscript is straightforward and easy to read. It provides valuable insight on a newly available method of pregnancy diagnosis in ruminants. Additional comments and suggestions are in the attached document. Reviewer #2: Specific Comments: Title and Abstract Appropriate title. In abstract should probably be inexpensive rather than cheap? Line 27 .. likelihood of false positive results are high if assays are performed fewer than 42 days pp. Might be less confusing (Lines 49-50.) Introduction Line 72; only 22days necessary when describing as early as… Line 73: probably best to describe where the PAG’s are increasing- circulation? Aims of study clearly stated. M&M’s IACUC stated- ethical research. Study 1 It would be useful to know if those that were diagnosed pregnant via ultrasonography also calved, illustrating no pregnancy loss occurred to validate the PAG assay results. Otherwise the results would need to be assessed for the possibility of pregnancy loss and inherent PAG decreases. Study 2 Good array of time points. Ultrasonography Please state transducer frequency. Line 112 Please also state either conceptus was detected; or an embryo or fetus were detected. The embryo becomes a fetus at between 40-45 days depending on publications and interpretations. Similarly embryonic loss can only occur up to day 45; maybe best to describe as late embryonic or early fetal loss occurred? Lines 114-115. Lateral Flow Please update the Figure descriptions, in line 127 the relevant figure is not numbered, and might not be featured in the SI? RVPT The scoring for the RVPT appears to be a bit confusing, and should probably be a discussion point? Statistical analysis Please use ultrasonography rather than ultrasound. It might be better to compare the tests in the same order as they are introduced: ultrasonography, lateral flow, RVPT and RPT, to make it easier for the reader. Line 166 My understanding is the ‘tendencies’ should not be part of statistical analysis. Results Table 1 useful. For table 2 and for all others please alter ultrasound for ultrasonography. Please ensure all the figures are correctly documented in the article, and correlate with the relevant illustrated figures. Line 282; not sure that tendency should be recorded; maybe in the discussion. Similarly for line 290, and for all mentions of a tendency. Discussion and conclusion Line 323; remove ‘a’ or member to singular. Lines 357-359: It is difficult to interpret the data without knowing the costs of the tests relative to the costs of ultrasonography. And, recognising the skill required to take the correct blood samples. If this could be addressed please. Lines 360-364: Please discuss the relevance of a false positive compared with a false negative in relation to the managers requirements- feeding of a non-pregnant animal, or culling of a pregnant animal. Discussion of relevance of DPP PAG results in relation to the likelihood of pregnancy if insemination is unlikely? And, importance of multiparity cf primiparity esp 35-49d pp. (Why?) (Lines 376-390) Line 388: Probably does not need: ‘with that said’; and to explain the differences RPT and Lateral Flow options more succinctly. Line 408: A ‘shot’ although a common colloquialism, should probably be best described scientifically as some sort of drug administration/injection? I think there needs to be some discussion as to the ‘immediacy’ of the gold standard ultrasonography compared with the relative delays associated with the tests described in the article. Particularly in relation to the handling and management of the animals in relation to the animals that are not pregnant. Some mention of the likelihood of a bovid in most management systems being inseminated within 50 days, hence the likelihood of being pregnant should be discussed in relation to the levels of PAG in post-partum cows. This in relation to the points mentioned in lines 442-446. (Uterine involution and voluntary waiting periods are typically more than 40 days in most dairy animals, and the effects of the described lactational anoestrus in beef animals typically resulting in breeding not occurring prior to 50days PP.) Competing Interests I think it is difficult to believe that no competing interests were declared when Idexx and Zoetis supported the study to a degree, and at least one author is an employee of Idexx. The Funding declaration in lines 452-453 appears to be at odds with that in the Financial disclosures section of the pre-manuscript section. Recommendation: This is useful information that should be published, with minor revisions suggested. ********** 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.
|
Revision 1 |
PONE-D-24-00715R1Evaluation of pregnancy associated glycoproteins assays for on farm determination of pregnancy status in beef cattlePLOS ONE Dear Dr. Perry, 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. There are a remaining few minor items that would need to be addressed - see comments from reviewer #1 below. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 08 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:
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, Angel Abuelo, DVM, MRes, MSc, PhD, DABVP (Dairy), DECBHM Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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) Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ********** 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 ********** 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 ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Thank you for the time and effort you have put into revising this manuscript. The revised version is much closer to completion and reads more easily than the first. However, there are a few additional minor revisions this reviewer would suggest prior to final acceptance. Line numbers correspond to the marked up version of the manuscript Line 63-65 This section, starting with “In order…” is a sentence fragment. Please revise so it is more clear and complete. Line 237 – In table and in legend, please correct spelling of “sensitivity” Lines 393-394 – In this sentence, it would be appropriate to use “ultrasound equipment” rather than “equipment of ultrasonography” Lines 394-397 – A better way to discuss the costs would be to state that the blood test methods range from $4.50 to $8 per head while the cost for ultrasound is going to depend on the veterinarian’s rate to perform the test and their speed. Many veterinarians, working with an efficient crew, can run 30-45 cows through the chute in an hour (or more) likely making the cost of all methods relatively similar and maybe even less per head for ultrasonography since veterinarians typically charge an hourly rate for these services (rather than per head). It also needs to be mentioned that a skilled ultrasonographer can provide valuable information about the pregnancy (viability, stage of gestation, fetal sex, etc) that is not provided by a blood test. Because of the extreme variability in rates charged by practicing veterinarians providing ultrasonography services across the country, I would suggest not including that dollar figure. Additionally, the most logical argument for the use of a cow side test is in rural areas where producers are unable to find veterinarians to perform pregnancy diagnosis. This tool allows those producers to benefit from pregnancy diagnosis and identification of non-pregnant cows which will help their bottom line even when professional services are unavailable. Lines 479-481 – The added sentences do not flow with the rest of the paragraph content. Please consider revising so they complete the paragraph. One suggested revision would be to word as follows: “Due to the additional time required for diagnosis of pregnancy with blood based tests, management decisions may be delayed compared to ultrasonography and may result in additional labor to sort open females once test results are available.” Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing the review comments; hopefully it has been beneficial to the publication to have done so. I have two concerns, both of which I will leave to the editor/s to address: I am not convinced that funding acquisition only is sufficient grounds for scientific authorship, although I am sure that J Rhodes did more than obtain funding, and would have been involved in the study concepts and editing the submitted document, thereby making an intellectual contribution to the research and it's output. I think that 'tendency' should be left for the reader to determine, and not be suggested by the authors. I am happy for the amended article to be published. ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: 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. |
Revision 2 |
Evaluation of pregnancy associated glycoproteins assays for on farm determination of pregnancy status in beef cattle PONE-D-24-00715R2 Dear Dr. Perry, 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, Angel Abuelo, DVM, MRes, MSc, PhD, DABVP (Dairy), DECBHM Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-24-00715R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Perry, 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. Angel Abuelo 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 .