PONE-D-24-21054Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jacewicz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 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,

Juan Fernando Vélez García

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 [Warsaw University of Life Science]. 

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors, based on the reviewers, the manuscript should be improved with minor revisions. Please review each comment of the reviewers and answer them. The manuscript should be improved with more references in the introduction and discussion sections. Use the last edition of the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria. The figures to support your results should be better. Please improve your photographs and schemes so that your article can be published well to our readers.

[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: Yes

**********

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: In the manuscript entitled “Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints” the Authors describe the course of musculocutaneous, median, radial and ulnar nerves which innervate the elbow joint. The data is gathered from appropriately large group of 50 dogs. The Authors describe the location of the nerve branches, which may contribute to improve surgical procedures on elbow joint in the future.

However, as the reviewer I have a several comments:

- The introduction is quite modest in the description of the studied nerves. In my opinion the description of the nerves should be developed with an indication of their sensory and motor functions, which would shed a light on the significance of these nerves and the study itself.

- In line 86, 151, 278… “The distribution of dogs with a different number…” may be understood that the dogs which have a different number of branches per joint are distributed differently than dogs without different number of branches… The Authors should consider changing the sentence. For example… The distribution/number of dogs in relation to the number of branches per joint…

- It should be pointed if the Figures are of own authorship, otherwise the source should be added

- In Fig.3. there should be a legend or description that a red line demonstrates the nerve

- In Figs 6, 9 and 11. same as above… the nerve branches should be marked

- Line 104… the abbreviation CI is not explained as confidence interval

- The statistical results of chi2 test should be presented in the table 3

- In lines 168 or 203 etc. I wound consider changing phrases like “results reported in [2]” into “results reported in Yilmaz and Bahadir’s study”

- In table 6, in one of the table column, there is untranslated fragment of the text

- In line 288, “respectively” is not necessary

- The References are not prepared in accordance to the PLOS ONE Submission Guidelines

Taking into account the above comments, in my opinion the article entitled: “Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints” is suitable for publishing in PLOS ONE after minor revision.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors

The manuscript submitted for review, entitled. "Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints" is written in understandable (not only for anatomists) language, and the issues raised are sure to interest not only specialists in the field. I have a few minor comments of an editorial nature. Please remove the period at the end of the title. Please remove the abbreviation "lat" throughout the manuscript (e.g. extensor carpi radialis muscle (lat: m. extensor carpi radialis) next to the names of anatomical structures-it is unnecessary. Please, next to the name in English write the name in Latin, the reader will know that it is Latin because it is given in italics. Table 6, column 3 - please translate Polish into English. I think that a weakness of this experience is a very modest list of publications to which the authors referred in preparing this manuscript. I think that after submitting a revised version of the manuscript and supplementing the literature section with new items, the work will be even more interesting.

Regards

**********

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.

PONE-D-24-21054R1Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jacewicz,

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 introduction information should include the description of the branches of each nerve to the elbow joint. Hermanson et al. (2020) describe the innervation to the elbow joint and include excellent figures of these branches. You can include a better introduction and review more recent references in veterinary anatomy and studies about locoregional blocks and surgeries involving the nerves. The redaction in English and Latin should improve. Your redaction does not agree with the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria, for example, you use terms that are not used in the thoracic limb, such as forelimb, foreleg, forepaw, ventral, behind, ulnar loop, and olecranon process. I recommend reviewing your redaction by an English native colleague. I recommend below more recent references that could be included to improve the introduction and discussion of your article. Among them, you can review these:

1. Konig, H. E., & Liebich, H. G. (2020). Veterinary anatomy of domestic animals. Textbook and color atlas.
2. Baljit Singh, B. S. (2017). Dyce, Sack, and Wensing's textbook of veterinary anatomy (No. Ed. 5, pp. 872-pp).
3. Orsini, J. A., Grenager, N. S., & De Lahunta, A. (Eds.). (2021). Comparative veterinary anatomy: a clinical approach. Academic Press.

If you use the Latin name of the NAV between parenthesis you do not need to include at the second time. E.g.: The nerve was dissected from the axillary region and then along the brachialis muscle towards the elbow joint. At the joint level, the nerve reaches the cranial side, continuing along the extensor carpi radialis muscle (m. extensor carpi radialis). The radial nerve transmitted articular branches to the cranial quadrant of the capsule, between the extensor carpi radialis muscle (From here is not necessary to include the Latin name for this muscle) and the common digital extensor (m. extensor digitorum communis).

-I recommend changing the color of the nerve from red to yellow since this later is the most used in the anatomy veterinary textbooks (Figures 3, 6, 9, 11). The red is used to arteries. The photographs of the figures are blurred (Figures 2, 5, 7, 8, 10).

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 30 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,

Juan Fernando Vélez García

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors,

The introduction information should include the description of the branches of each nerve to the elbow joint. Hermanson et al. (2020) describe the innervation to the elbow joint and include excellent figures of these branches. You can include a better introduction and review more recent references in veterinary anatomy and studies about locoregional blocks and surgeries involving the nerves. The redaction in English and Latin should improve. Your redaction does not agree with the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria, for example, you use terms that are not used in the thoracic limb, such as forelimb, foreleg, forepaw, ventral, behind, ulnar loop, and olecranon process. I recommend reviewing your redaction by an English native colleague. I recommend below more recent references that could be included to improve the introduction and discussion of your article. Among them, you can review these:

1. Konig, H. E., & Liebich, H. G. (2020). Veterinary anatomy of domestic animals. Textbook and color atlas.

2. Baljit Singh, B. S. (2017). Dyce, Sack, and Wensing's textbook of veterinary anatomy (No. Ed. 5, pp. 872-pp).

3. Orsini, J. A., Grenager, N. S., & De Lahunta, A. (Eds.). (2021). Comparative veterinary anatomy: a clinical approach. Academic Press.

If you use the Latin name of the NAV between parenthesis you do not need to include at the second time. E.g.: The nerve was dissected from the axillary region and then along the brachialis muscle towards the elbow joint. At the joint level, the nerve reaches the cranial side, continuing along the extensor carpi radialis muscle (m. extensor carpi radialis). The radial nerve transmitted articular branches to the cranial quadrant of the capsule, between the extensor carpi radialis muscle (From here is not necessary to include again the Latin name to this muscle) and the common digital extensor (m. extensor digitorum communis).

-I recommend changing the color of the nerve from red to yellow since this later is the most used in the anatomy veterinary textbooks (Figures 3, 6, 9, 11). The red is used to arteries. The photographs of the figures are blurred (Figures 2, 5, 7, 8, 10). The figure 2 is unnecessary, it only shows the ulnar nerve and your study is about the branches.

[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: 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 manuscript entitled “Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints” has been improved by the Authors. The Authors have highlighted the significance and the course of musculocutaneous, median, radial and ulnar nerves which innervate the elbow joint. My comments were taken into consideration and the text was corrected in a way that the article represents a greater scientific value. However there are still some minor corrections to be done:

- Line 52, there is double parenthesis

- Some of Latin names are in italics and some not. It should be unified.

- Line 206, double dot

- Line 227, the sentence should be changed. There is: “In results reported… it was reported.

In my opinion the article entitled: “Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints” is suitable for publishing in PLOS ONE after minor revision.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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.

Investigation of the canine elbow joint innervation in 100 joints.

PONE-D-24-21054R2

Dear Dr. Jacewitz,

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,

Juan Fernando Vélez García

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear authors, the manuscript was improved based on my last suggestions and comments. It is ready to publish. Congratulations.

Reviewers' comments: