PONE-D-24-34533Availability, Price and Nutritional Assessment of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives in Hypermarkets and Supermarkets in Petaling, the Most Populated District in MalaysiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Say,

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.

You can find the reviewer comments below in this email, as well as in the attachments, if available.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 18 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,

Karthikeyan Venkatachalam, Ph.D. in Food Science and Technology

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 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. 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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: The findings of this study contribute significantly to the fields of nutrition, food science, and public health, particularly in the context of Malaysia. The research highlights the availability and nutritional profiles of PBMAs, which can inform consumers, health professionals, and policymakers about healthier dietary options. Furthermore, the study's insights into pricing can aid in understanding market dynamics and consumer behavior regarding plant-based products.

1. The study mentions that PBMAs generally have lower protein content compared to meat equivalents. What specific strategies do you suggest for improving the protein content of PBMAs in the Malaysian market?

2. Given the findings on the nutritional quality of PBMAs, how do you plan to disseminate this information to consumers to help them make informed dietary choices?

3. Have you considered conducting follow-up studies to assess changes in the availability and pricing of PBMAs over time, especially as consumer demand increases?

4. You noted the need for further research on micronutrient profiles. What specific micronutrients do you believe are most critical to assess in future studies, and why?

5. You mentioned limitations regarding the use of the Singapore database for meat equivalents. How might this impact the validity of your comparisons, and what steps could be taken in future research to address this issue?

6. The discussion touches on the health implications of ultra-processed foods. How do you propose to evaluate the degree of processing in PBMAs in future studies, and what impact do you think this has on consumer health?

7. Considering Malaysia's diverse culinary landscape, how do you think cultural preferences might influence the acceptance and consumption of PBMAs?

Overall, the manuscript presents valuable research that is timely and relevant to current dietary trends in Malaysia. Addressing the questions posed could enhance the manuscript's depth and provide further insights into the implications of the findings. I recommend minor revisions to improve clarity and conciseness before publication.

Reviewer #2: I suggest authors carefully revise the comments given at each point in the manuscript and recommend for publication in this journal. I have included my little comments along with separate files in the attachment.

Reviewer #3: First, congratulations on the comprehensive research regarding an emerging theme. Here are my minor suggestions and doubts to help the authors improve the clarity and quality of the article:

Suggestions:

Enhance the description of the rationale behind the Nutri-Score in the methodological section for better clarity.

Doubts:

Out of the total of 2,736 PBMAs, why were only 251 subject to the Energy and Nutrient Content Comparison and Nutri-Score Evaluation of Nutritional Quality analysis? Specifying the inclusion and exclusion criteria could strengthen the credibility of the analysis.

Reviewer #4: Thank you for the opportunity to review Manuscript Number PONE-D-24-34533 for the Journal of PLOS ONE. This scientific research study titled "Availability, Price, and Nutritional Assessment of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives in Hypermarkets and Supermarkets in Petaling, the Most Populated District in Malaysia" presents intriguing findings and will significantly enhance the understanding of plant-based food markets in the field of science.

Please, see attached (word, pdf) files

Reviewer #5: I have completed the review of the manuscript entitled "Availability, Price and Nutritional Assessment of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives in Hypermarkets and Supermarkets in Petaling, the Most Populated District in Malaysia”. There are several areas where the manuscript can be strengthened for clarity and scientific rigor.

Comments to the Author

1. Please define Abbreviation in first appearance. The abbr. PBMA must be defined in both the abstract and at the beginning of the introduction.

2. The article does not mention with a compelling argument for why the quantitative analysis of PBMAs in Malaysia is necessary. The narrative of rising demand in Malaysia does not convincingly signify the demand just by correlating it with broad global market trends. This leads to the broader description of problem; and strengthening this aspect will better justify the study objectives.

3. a. The study excluded small and medium-sized grocery stores, potentially missing a segment of the market that may offer different PBMA varieties or pricing structures. How will the authors address that?

b. How would you justify that selection criteria of supermarkets and hypermarkets via Google searches and on-site visits did not introduce any biases in the selection of supermarkets and hypermarkets.

c. Please correct "Supermarkets and Hypermarkets in Subang" to reflect multiple location name in order to avoid confusion that there was only one google search for Subang.

4. In the methodology describing nutritional profiling, please explain Nutri-Score system. While the color scheme and scores are mentioned, please specify a detailed explanation for -15 (healthiest) to +40 (least healthy), similar to the caption of figure 4, for clarity and context.

5. Missing “Full stop” in line 204 and line 228.

6. Line 280-292, supporting evidence for price comparisons between PBMA provides contradictory findings. Even though the PBMA prices in Canada are similar to those in Malaysia, the cost of meat in Canada is not significantly different than Canadian PBMA. This undermines the argument that PBMA are expensive. It is recommended to include additional references to further support the price comparison.

Furthermore, please discuss how the price variations across regions or product categories affects consumer behavior, if possible.

7. The PBMAs generally have lower energy densities due to factors like lower fat, higher water, fiber content, and hydrocolloid binders (replacement of fat that yields more energy) compared to meat products. However, the comparison between Malaysian PBMAs and European meat products (lines 296) is ambiguously presented. The phrase “Malaysian PBMAs generally have lower energy densities than European meat-based products” suggests that European PBMAs may have higher energy density, which could be misleading. ……In fact, rewriting this whole paragraph would do the justice to the manuscript (Rewrite line 294-308).

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes: Celson Júnio do Nascimento Costa

Reviewer #4: Yes: Woroud Alsanei

Reviewer #5: Yes: Prashant Dahal

**********

[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 report on PBMA_Plose one.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-34533 - Reviewre comments.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-24-34533 - Reviewre comments.docx

PONE-D-24-34533R1Availability, Price and Nutritional Assessment of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives in Hypermarkets and Supermarkets in Petaling, the Most Populated District in MalaysiaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Say,

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.

​The reviewers appreciated your efforts in revising the original version of the manuscript, and several have recommended accepting your work. However, there are still a few minor comments from Reviewer 2. I kindly request that you address these comments before I finalize the decision on your manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 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:

• 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,

Karthikeyan Venkatachalam, Ph.D. in Food Science and Technology

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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: 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 #2: In the discussion section:

1. I suggest that the paper will be more insightful if you can highlight the narrative regarding the effect of processed or junk foods compared to semi-processed or whole-grain foods on health with supporting from existing literature.

2. Again, the results presentation in the discussion section seems to be a duplication; rather, stick to the possible reasons and consequences, and comparison of the finding with previous works is important.

Reviewer #5: The authors have properly amended the manuscript by considering the reviewers' comments. The revised manuscript is now acceptable.

**********

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 #2: No

Reviewer #5: Yes: Prashant Dahal

**********

[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.

Availability, Price and Nutritional Assessment of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives in Hypermarkets and Supermarkets in Petaling, the Most Populated District in Malaysia

PONE-D-24-34533R2

Dear Dr. Say,

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,

Karthikeyan Venkatachalam, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: