-->PONE-D-24-56358-->-->Validating Atlantic salmon (Salmo Salar) scale reading by genetic parent assignment and PIT-tagging-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Utne,

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.

1. This manuscript not technically sound, and the data cannot support the conclusions. PLOS ONE is designed to communicate primary scientific research, and welcome submissions in any applied discipline that will contribute to the base of scientific knowledge. But this manuscript not adhere to the criteria for scientific research article that results show not sufficient to support the conclusion.

2. This manuscript has the statistical analysis problem.

3. This manuscript needs to adhere the PLOS Data Policy. The authors need to make all methods, materials and data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available.

4. The revised manuscript needs to address each of the comments of the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 02 2025 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,

Tzong-Yueh Chen, 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. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on (1) methods of sacrifice, (2) methods of anesthesia and/or analgesia, and (3) efforts to alleviate suffering.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The study was funded by the Norwegian ministry for trade, industry and fisheries. “

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. Thank you for uploading your study's underlying data set. Unfortunately, the repository you have noted in your Data Availability statement does not qualify as an acceptable data repository according to PLOS's standards.

At this time, please upload the minimal data set necessary to replicate your study's findings to a stable, public repository (such as figshare or Dryad) and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a list of recommended repositories and additional information on PLOS standards for data deposition, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories .

5. We notice that your supplementary [Table S1] are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

[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: 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: 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: 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: This manuscript, titled “Validating Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Scale Reading by Genetic Parent Assignment and PIT-Tagging,” effectively evaluates and presents an efficient and accurate method for determining the age of Atlantic salmon through scale reading. Additionally, the authors employed genetic parentage assignment and PIT-tagging to provide a more precise evaluation of freshwater and sea-age distinctions. The manuscript is well-written in fluent English, and the results are both compelling and deserving of publication in PLOS ONE. However, there are a few minor comments for the authors, as outlined below.

1. Why was only one scale included in the final dataset (L131–L132)? Would it not be better to conduct replicates or triplicates to reduce measurement error?

2. This is just a personal comment: Both scales and otoliths are commonly used to determine the age of teleosts. Considering the challenges in distinguishing freshwater and sea age, as mentioned by the authors, why not attempt a comparison with otolith data? Otoliths can effectively differentiate habitats through isotope ratios, such as the Sr:Ca ratio.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript: PONE-D-24-56358

Title: Validating Atlantic Salmon (Salmo Salar) Scale Reading by Genetic Parent Assignment and PIT-Tagging

General Comments:

This paper provides an important dataset and addresses a critical question in fisheries science. However, to enhance its scientific rigor and broader applicability, the authors should improve the description of the experimental design, conduct a more in-depth and complete data analysis, and critically evaluate the implications of their findings. By addressing these issues, this manuscript has the potential to be a valuable contribution to the field.

Specific Comments:

1. The manuscript does not clearly articulate a hypothesis or research question. It is recommended that the authors explicitly state the hypothesis or objectives to provide a clearer research direction.

2. Provide detailed information on whether the sample size of 254 fish is sufficient to generalize the findings, either through statistical power analysis or reference to previous literature.

3. Include more detailed information on the distribution of fish characteristics, such as the precise sites of scale sampling, freshwater age, marine age, and size. A comprehensive description of these properties should be included in the Materials and Methods section.

4. Add images or diagrams to enhance reader understanding and provide clearer visualizations to highlight key findings and address potential biases.

5. Strengthen the manuscript by incorporating additional data, such as more detailed growth and environmental information for fish with known ages. Consider employing more robust validation methods, such as otolith analysis or independent genetic markers.

6. Provide details on controls or calibration methods used in the scale-reading process to minimize or control variability among readers.

7. Since the study relies heavily on experienced readers for scale analysis, include information on how their training was standardized. Discuss calibration procedures to ensure consistency and reliability among readers.

8. Elaborate on the steps taken to verify the accuracy of salmon back-calculated lengths using alternative methods or indicators.

9. Some claims made in the manuscript lack sufficient data support. For instance, the accuracy of Multi-Sea Winter (MSW) salmon is only briefly discussed. Expand on these findings with additional data or analysis.

10. Provide more detail about the statistical methods used. For example: Explain why generalized logistic regression was chosen and how it was validated. Justify the use of Pearson correlation analysis and discuss its limitations in this context.

11. The Discussion section mainly restates results without critically analyzing their implications. Include discussions on potential biases and limitations, such as reader variability or environmental factors affecting scale formation.

12. Situate the study within the broader context of fisheries science. Compare the findings with previous research on Atlantic salmon or other salmonids, highlighting similarities and differences.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments_20250115.docx

Validating Atlantic salmon (Salmo Salar) scale reading by genetic parent assignment and PIT-tagging

PONE-D-24-56358R1

Dear Dr. Utne,

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,

Tzong-Yueh Chen, 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: The authors have adequately addressed all my comments, and I find this manuscript acceptable for publication.

Reviewer #2: Overall, the authors have carefully addressed all review comments and have substantially improved the manuscript through appropriate revisions and clarifications. In particular, the authors have enhanced the clarity of the research objectives and provided additional details on sample characteristics, methodological procedures, and statistical analyses. The inclusion of new tables and figures has improved the transparency of the data and made the findings more accessible to readers.

The clarification of the scale reading calibration process and the discussion of limitations, such as the restricted availability of otoliths and the challenges with MSW salmon sample size, reflect a responsible and scientifically sound approach. While some suggestions—such as implementing alternative back-calculation methods—were acknowledged but not fully incorporated due to data constraints, the authors have provided reasonable justifications and expressed a willingness to explore these aspects in future studies.

In my opinion, the revised manuscript has demonstrated improved scientific rigor and greater applicability to fisheries science and management. The dataset and analytical approach are valuable contributions to the field, particularly for validating fish age determination methods using integrated genetic and tagging techniques. I believe the manuscript is now suitable for publication, pending the editor’s final decision.

**********

-->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

**********