Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 29, 2024
Decision Letter - Pankaj Bhardwaj, Editor

PONE-D-24-12796The presence of resinous included phloem indicative of genuine or fake agarwoodPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. The independent reviewers have highlighted few important shortcomings in your manuscript. Please go through the comments and submit your revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 07 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,

Pankaj Bhardwaj, 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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

The American Journal Experts (AJE) (https://www.aje.com/) is one such service that has extensive experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. Please note that having the manuscript copyedited by AJE or any other editing services does not guarantee selection for peer review or acceptance for publication.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Hainan Provincial Natural Science Foundation (822MS145); the project of medical and health science and technology innovation engineering of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (2021-1-I2M-032);Hainan Provincial Nanhai xinxing Science and Technology Innovation Talent Platform Project (NHXXRCXM202341); Hainan Provincial Nanhai xinxing Science and Technology Innovation Talent Platform Project (NHXXRCXM202341); National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.81703660); the earmarked fund for CARS (CARS-21).”

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.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: This work describes the method for identifying authentic agarwood.

General observations:

1. The language needs improvement.

2. The supplementary information can form a part of the main text.

3. Data related to the anatomical characteristics and be provided as supplementary information.

The sectionwise comments are provided as attachment.

Reviewer #2: 1. The manuscript is very flimsy in its scientific content and poor in language. It needs a major revision before being considered further for evaluation.

2. The authors have included many paragraphs that are irrelevant; it seems like they were included just to increase the volume of the text.

3. The details of any statistical analysis conducted are not clear.

4. Is the repeatability of the experiments doubtful?

5. The title of the manuscript is inappropriate and does not spell out the objective of the study clearly.

6. The manuscript contains many typographical errors.

7. The plagiarism of the manuscript may also be checked.

**********

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: Yes: SHARADA MALLUBHOTLA

**********

[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: Reviewers Comments Article-240128.docx
Attachment
Submitted filename: Article-240128 with comments.docx
Revision 1

Point-by-point response to reviewer 1

Reply to journal requirements

We are very grateful to the reviewer for the specification of this paper, and we have made the required article-by-article changes as detailed below:

Q1. The language needs improvement.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. The language of the manuscript has been revised and embellished.

Q2. The supplementary information can form a part of the main text.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. Changes have been made in response to your comments, and S1a Fig, S1b Fig, S1c Fig, and S1 Table have been added to the manuscript. To avoid duplication, Table 1 has been placed in the annexed material as S1 Table. Revisions to other elements have been identified in the manuscript with yellow underlining.

Q3. Data related to the anatomical characteristics and be provided as supplementary information. The sectionwise comments are provided as attachment.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. In response to your comments, we have made some changes and have provided the data charts for anatomical features as an attachment, and other content changes are identified with a yellow underline.

Q4. Title: Could be modified as 1) Assessing Authenticity in Agarwood through the Presence of Resinous Included Phloem; 2) Resinous Included Phloem as a Key Indicator of fake or authentic Agarwood.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. We have chosen your point 2 as a more appropriate title for the article and have revised it in the manuscript.

Q5. Introduction: 1) Language needs improvement; 2) A logical flow is lacking in the introduction. It fails to introduce the need for identifying included phloem characterisitics to establish a reliable method for identifying authentic agarwood.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. We have made changes to the introduction.

Q6. Materials and Methods: 1) Clarify the terms "uncertain agarwood", " producing areas " to ensure it's easily understood by readers. 2) What does ‘mainly referring to the common counterfeiting methods in the market’ mean? 3) When you mention 53 batches, how many samples were present in each batch? Or do you mean 53 samples? 4) Ensure consistency in terminology. Retain either batch or sample. 5) How many observations were recorded per sample? 6) What statistical analysis was employed? 7) Overall, the essential details of the sample collection process is conveyed, but breaking down the information and providing clarifications can enhance readability and comprehension.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. We have revised and clarified the seven issues you raised in the manuscript.

Q7. Results: The results effectively communicate the findings, but there are areas where clarity and conciseness could be improved.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. We have followed the changes made to the results section.

Q8. Discussion: 1) The readability of the discussion is moderate. While the information presented is clear in most parts, there are areas where the complexity of the subject matter or the improper usage of grammar poses a challenge. 2) With minor revisions to simplify the language and complex concepts, the readability of the report could be improved. 3) Consider rephrasing or condensing repetitive information to avoid redundancy.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. We have made the changes you suggested.

Point-by-point response to reviewer 2

Reply to journal requirements

We are very grateful to reviewer for the specification of this paper, and we have made the required article-by-article changes as detailed below:

Q1. The manuscript is very flimsy in its scientific content and poor in language. It needs a major revision before being considered further for evaluation.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. The language and content of the manuscript has been revised and embellished.

Q2. The authors have included many paragraphs that are irrelevant; it seems like they were included just to increase the volume of the text.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. The contents of the manuscript have been verified and revised.

Q3. The details of any statistical analysis conducted are not clear.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. Sample observation and statistical analysis methods have been added to the Materials and Methods section.

Q4. Is the repeatability of the experiments doubtful?

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. We firmly believe that the results of the manuscript are reliable. We analyzed the samples of authentic agarwood from different producing areas by observation, and at least 12 replicates of thin slices of each sample were extracted for microstructure observation and analysis. Methodological validation was also carried out on artificially fake agarwood, and the resin-containing included phloem was found to be the characteristic structure of authentic agarwood. In addition, our team specializes in the research of authentication and quality control of agarwood and has established the China's first agarwood authentication center, which is also confirmed by the CMA accreditation issued by the Chinese government. The methods used in this research are simple and practical and meet the use of agarwood-related industries.

Q5. The title of the manuscript is inappropriate and does not spell out the objective of the study clearly.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. We chose the appropriate title “Resinous included phloem as a key indicator of authentic or fake agarwood” and revised it in the original manuscript.

Q6. The manuscript contains many typographical errors.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. Changes have been checked and corrected in the manuscript.

Q7. The plagiarism of the manuscript may also be checked.

Answer: Thank you very much for your review. The data in our manuscript is authentic and reliable and there is no plagiarism. our team specializes in the research of authentication and quality control of agarwood and has established the China's first agarwood authentication center, which is also confirmed by the CMA accreditation issued by the Chinese government. The methods used in this research are simple and practical and meet the use of agarwood-related industries. The experimental data in the manuscripts involved are authentic.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers1+2.docx
Decision Letter - Pankaj Bhardwaj, Editor

Resinous included phloem as a key indicator of authentic or fake agarwood

PONE-D-24-12796R1

Dear Dr. Liu,

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,

Pankaj Bhardwaj, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: All corrections / suggestions in the article - The presence of resinous included phloem indicative of genuine or fake agarwood have been addressed. The article can be accepted.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed the comments to my satisfaction.

The statistial analysis an important component of practical research has been substantially added to the manuscript.

The manuscript can now be accepted after formatting the references as per journal guidelines.

**********

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: Yes: SHARADA MALLUBHOTLA

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Pankaj Bhardwaj, Editor

PONE-D-24-12796R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Liu,

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. Pankaj Bhardwaj

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 .