The effect of photoperiod, environmental temperature and wind speed on external quality of free-range turkey eggs

José Ignacio Salgado Pardo; Juan Vicente Delgado Bermejo; Antonio González Ariza; José Manuel León Jurado; María Esperanza Camacho Vallejo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326308

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 7, 2025
7 Apr 2025 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326308.r001
Decision Letter - Lamiaa Radwan, Editor Dear Dr. González Ariza, 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. ============================== Dear Dr., Antonio González Ariza Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Major Revision. Kind regards, Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewer 1 Kindly review the MS for a few mistakes/omissions according to my point of view, otherwise its okay. However this study is unique and leading to a new pathway to explore some of the myths related to lunar effect in scientific way. I congratulate the author/s. Reviewer 2 1. The problem that prompted the research should be written at the beginning of the abstract before presenting the purpose of the study. 2. The introduction should be somewhat brief. 3. The age of the turkey flock used in the experiment to collect eggs should be mentioned. 4. Indicate the number of birds used in the experiment and the total number of the nucleus flock. 5. It is preferable to support research materials with images that illustrate each of the following: (the morphology of the turkey breed used, the frr range system followed in the study, and the grading of the seven egg groups). 6. The metabolize energy value represented in the commercial diet should be added. 7. Indicate in detail the number of days over which the eggs were collected. 8. Since the measurements were taken on the eggs 24 hours after oviposition, indicate whether they were stored properly. The storage temperature and relative humidity should be determined. 9- The number of cited references is excessive. It is preferable to reduce the number by excluding older references if there are more recent ones. 10- In Figure 1, the cumulative variance (%) is written on the vertical axis. 11- It is preferable to add the significance levels to the correlation values in Table 3. 12- In Figure 3, the graph illustrates what is meant by F1 and F2.. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 13 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. 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 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, Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, 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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: “This research was funded by FEDER project P20_00893 and, during the covering period of a pre-doctoral contract (FPU Fellowship, with code FPU21/00010), the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.” 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. 3. 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. Additional Editor Comments: Dear Dr., Antonio González Ariza Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we have decided that your manuscript needs Major Revision. Kind regards, Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewer 1 Kindly review the MS for a few mistakes/omissions according to my point of view, otherwise its okay. However this study is unique and leading to a new pathway to explore some of the myths related to lunar effect in scientific way. I congratulate the author/s. Reviewer 2 1. The problem that prompted the research should be written at the beginning of the abstract before presenting the purpose of the study. 2. The introduction should be somewhat brief. 3. The age of the turkey flock used in the experiment to collect eggs should be mentioned. 4. Indicate the number of birds used in the experiment and the total number of the nucleus flock. 5. It is preferable to support research materials with images that illustrate each of the following: (the morphology of the turkey breed used, the frr range system followed in the study, and the grading of the seven egg groups). 6. The metabolize energy value represented in the commercial diet should be added. 7. Indicate in detail the number of days over which the eggs were collected. 8. Since the measurements were taken on the eggs 24 hours after oviposition, indicate whether they were stored properly. The storage temperature and relative humidity should be determined. 9- The number of cited references is excessive. It is preferable to reduce the number by excluding older references if there are more recent ones. 10- In Figure 1, the cumulative variance (%) is written on the vertical axis. 11- It is preferable to add the significance levels to the correlation values in Table 3. 12- In Figure 3, the graph illustrates what is meant by F1 and F2. [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? 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 Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Kindly review the MS for a few mistakes/omissions according to my point of view, otherwise its okay. However this study is unique and leading to a new pathway to explore some of the myths related to lunar effect in scientific way. I congratulate the author/s. Reviewer #2: 1. The problem that prompted the research should be written at the beginning of the abstract before presenting the purpose of the study. 2. The introduction should be somewhat brief. 3. The age of the turkey flock used in the experiment to collect eggs should be mentioned. 4. Indicate the number of birds used in the experiment and the total number of the nucleus flock. 5. It is preferable to support research materials with images that illustrate each of the following: (the morphology of the turkey breed used, the frr range system followed in the study, and the grading of the seven egg groups). 6. The metabolize energy value represented in the commercial diet should be added. 7. Indicate in detail the number of days over which the eggs were collected. 8. Since the measurements were taken on the eggs 24 hours after oviposition, indicate whether they were stored properly. The storage temperature and relative humidity should be determined. 9- The number of cited references is excessive. It is preferable to reduce the number by excluding older references if there are more recent ones. 10- In Figure 1, the cumulative variance (%) is written on the vertical axis. 11- It is preferable to add the significance levels to the correlation values in Table 3. 12- In Figure 3, the graph illustrates what is meant by F1 and F2. ****** 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: Yes: Dr Abdul Waheed Reviewer #2: Yes: Abdelmoniem Hanafy ******** [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 Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-17693.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326308.r002
Revision 1
19 May 2025 Author Response Antonio González Ariza Agropecuary Provincial Centre, Diputación Provincial de Córdoba Department of Genetics, Faculty of Veterinary Sciences, University of Córdoba Córdoba (Spain) +34 679305661 angoarvet@outlook.es 16/10/2024 Dear Editor, All the team responsible for this paper acknowledge the comments from the reviewers and editor, as they help to improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following paragraphs, we will describe and address how reviewers’ new recommendations were followed. Reviewer 1 Kindly review the MS for a few mistakes/omissions according to my point of view, otherwise its okay. However this study is unique and leading to a new pathway to explore some of the myths related to lunar effect in scientific way. I congratulate the author/s. We thank the reviewer for his/her kind comments. Reviewer 2 1. The problem that prompted the research should be written at the beginning of the abstract before presenting the purpose of the study. As requested, an introductory sentence highlighting the unawareness in the field has been added to the abstract to reinforce the aim of the study. 2. The introduction should be somewhat brief. As requested, the introduction has been shortened from the initial 909 words to the current 684 words of length, including cites. Core concepts have remained while removing secondary information and simplifying sentences. 3. The age of the turkey flock used in the experiment to collect eggs should be mentioned. The age of the hens that constituted the experimental flock has been added as requested. 4. Indicate the number of birds used in the experiment and the total number of the nucleus flock. As requested, the number of the hens that constituted the experimental flock has been added. 5. It is preferable to support research materials with images that illustrate each of the following: (the morphology of the turkey breed used, the frr range system followed in the study, and the grading of the seven egg groups). A new figure has been uploaded and included in the manuscript in which the appearance of the turkey landrace under study and the pen where animals were kept are visible. No additional pictures on the egg grading are included since we consider that the specific egg weights and shapes metrics differentiating categories are sufficiently described in the materials and methods. 6. The metabolize energy value represented in the commercial diet should be added. As requested, the metabolizable energy value represented in the commercial diet has been added in the manuscript. 7. Indicate in detail the number of days over which the eggs were collected. A deeper explanation of the collection and measurement protocol has been included in the material and methods, specifying the number of days of egg collection and analysis, as requested. 8. Since the measurements were taken on the eggs 24 hours after oviposition, indicate whether they were stored properly. The storage temperature and relative humidity should be determined. Eggs were not stored between collection and quality measurement, they were directly analyzed after collection. 9- The number of cited references is excessive. It is preferable to reduce the number by excluding older references if there are more recent ones. The number of references has been reduced from the initial 79 to the current 62 references. 10- In Figure 1, the cumulative variance (%) is written on the vertical axis. The cumulative contribution to the variance explanation of the model is on the right vertical axis to describe their units (0 – 100%), different than those for the eigenvalues. The six discriminating functions generated in the model are represented on the horizontal axis. 11- It is preferable to add the significance levels to the correlation values in Table 3. The correlation analysis was automatically generated as part of the discriminant routine and was included in the analysis as extra information about the interaction between the variables included. We suggest that, as a secondary approach in the study, we could avoid adding further detail to keep this table simple, since general conclusions can be extracted from the ‘r’ value. 12- In Figure 3, the graph illustrates what is meant by F1 and F2. F1 and F2 are the first two (and more variance-explanatory) discriminating functions generated by the model. In this figure, coordinates were represented through their equations to represent the spatial representation of the group’s centroids. However, the variance explanatory potential (%) of each variable has been added in this figure. To this end, we thank you for your time and attention and for considering this manuscript. Should you require any further information do not hesitate to contact me via email or telephone at any time. Yours faithfully, Dr. Antonio González Ariza https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326308.r003
Decision Letter - Lamiaa Radwan, Editor The effect of photoperiod, environmental temperature and wind speed on external quality of free-range turkey eggs PONE-D-25-17693R1 Dear Dr. Antonio González Ariza, 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, Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Dear Dr., Antonio González Ariza I am pleased to inform you that the manuscript has been accepted for publication. Kind regards, Prof. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewer 1 hope author/s have addressed all the queries/ suggestions as shown in the revised manuscript. Although more research is needed to quantify such facts, yet this would be pioneering work explaining the celestial impressions. Reviewer 2 Thanks for quick response and doing the required comments, with my best wishes. Most comments were mentioned, you complete it. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 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??> 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 Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: I hope author/s have addressed all the queries/ suggestions as shown in the revised manuscript. Although more research is needed to quantify such facts, yet this would be pioneering work explaining the celestial impressions. Reviewer #2: Thanks for quick response and doing the required comments, with my best wishes. Most comments were mentioned, you complete it. ****** 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: Yes: Dr. Abdul Waheed Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Abdelmoniem Hanafy ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326308.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Lamiaa Radwan, Editor PONE-D-25-17693R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. González Ariza, 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 You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days 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 Prof. Dr. Lamiaa Mostafa Radwan Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326308.r005

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 .