Dear Dr. KEAWDOUNGLEK,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please insert comments here and delete this placeholder text when finished.

One or more of the reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. Members of the editorial team have determined that the works referenced are not directly related to the submitted manuscript. As such, please note that it is not necessary or expected to cite the works requested by the reviewer. 

publication criteria  and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 18 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 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,

Mahmood Ahmed

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that all the data is available on the request

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Additional Editor Comments:

Major revision

[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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors

The present manuscript is an interesting article with a suitable methodology, but some details should be discussed more

What is the basis of naming the model?

Does theoretical literature need more explanation?

Information about the studied groups should be mentioned in the results section.

Research limitations and recommendations for future research should be mentioned.

Reviewer #2: General:

- The language in this article needs reviewing, as it's often unclear and not written in an academic tone.

- There is a great degree of presumed knowledge, and terms need to be better explained.

- The purpose of the research and its use is unclear.

- Referencing needs addressing as often statements are made without reference.

Abstract:

- There is a lack of clarity about what the Laab Nuer model is, who it is for.

- I cannot identify the research problem that this research is looking to address

Intro & Method.

- I found the introduction lacks clarity and organisation. It would benefit from having headings and making sure it has a logical flow.

- You need to start with the research problem, and what you are trying to address.

- Whilst there is a Figure 1 which looks at the three research areas, without the research problem being clearly identified this is not as useful as it could be.

Method :

- There is reference to 'conferring with a restaurant owner' - is this part of the research protocol, what ethical approval processes were used. This seems colloquial and needs accurate academic referencing.

- The limitations need to be better explained, and what was done to overcome them.

Model:

- I found the model hard to follow, because I am not sure who it is for and how it answers your research questions.

- Is this for policymakers, is it for hospitality?

Discussion

- You write that: Thus, this model succeeds effectively in managing food safety in traditional Lanna cuisine. but that also "Therefore, the "Laab Nuer Model" needs to be researched". This is not clear.

**********

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:  Amirreza Rezaei

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.

Dear Dr. KEAWDOUNGLEK,

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.

==============================

One or more of the reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. Members of the editorial team have determined that the works referenced are not directly related to the submitted manuscript. As such, please note that it is not necessary or expected to cite the works requested by the reviewer

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 01 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 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,

Mahmood Ahmed

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Reviewer #3: This research effectively addresses a critical issue in food safety management, specifically in the context of traditional Lanna cuisine. The proposed "Laab Nuer Model" is a notable innovation, offering a comprehensive framework for addressing food safety across the entire supply chain—from raw material sourcing (upstream) to consumer education (downstream). Below is a detailed review with strengths and actionable suggestions for improvement.

Strengths of the Manuscript

1. Innovative Framework:

The "Laab Nuer Model" integrates three key stages—upstream (markets), midstream (restaurants), and downstream (consumers)—into a cohesive approach. This structured model ensures that food safety is addressed holistically, covering chemical contamination, hygiene practices, and consumer awareness.

2. Scientific Rigor:

The use of standardized protocols (e.g., HPLC for Paraquat analysis and MPN for biological contamination) demonstrates the technical robustness of the study.

The sample sizes were determined appropriately using G*Power, ensuring adequate statistical power, and reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha, which adds confidence to the findings.

Statistical tests such as One-Way ANOVA were performed rigorously to validate the significance of the model’s components.

3. Practical Applicability:

The model emphasizes actionable interventions, such as incentivizing farmers to follow good agricultural practices (GAP), conducting hygiene training for food handlers, and educating consumers. These measures are well-aligned with real-world implementation.

4. Data Transparency:

The authors have made the data underlying their findings fully available, in compliance with PLOS ONE’s data-sharing policy. This openness enhances the reproducibility and credibility of the research.

5. Focus on Regional Relevance:

The emphasis on Lanna cuisine reflects the cultural and economic importance of food safety in northern Thailand, with potential implications for the tourism industry. This localized focus is a strength, as it provides a practical solution tailored to specific cultural practices.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Clarity and Language:

While the manuscript is intelligible, certain sections (e.g., Introduction and Discussion) contain awkward phrasing and minor grammatical errors. For instance:

Phrases like "food includes nutrients and minerals that are essential for the body's growth and repair" could be simplified to "food provides essential nutrients for growth and repair."

Consider revising sentences in the Discussion section for conciseness and flow.

2. Figures and Visual Representation:

Some figures (e.g., Paraquat concentration comparisons in different types of plants and E. coli contamination data) could be enhanced with clearer labels and legends to make the data easier to interpret.

Graphs should include units, axis titles, and descriptive captions that explain the significance of the data.

3. Expand on Generalizability:

While the study focuses on Lanna cuisine, a brief discussion of how the model could be adapted to other regions or food types would enhance its broader applicability. For example:

How might this model address similar challenges in street food markets or other traditional cuisines globally?

Could the upstream interventions, such as GAP certification, be adapted to other agricultural supply chains?

4. Statistical Reporting:

The statistical analysis could benefit from more detailed reporting. For instance, including confidence intervals, effect sizes, or post-hoc analysis results would provide a deeper understanding of the findings.

Adding a summary table of the key statistical results in the Results section might improve clarity.

5. Consumer Education and Awareness:

The downstream recommendations could be expanded to include modern approaches such as leveraging social media campaigns, mobile apps, or community workshops to educate consumers on food safety.

The manuscript could also address potential challenges in changing consumer behavior, particularly in rural or low-literacy populations.

6. Limitations and Future Research:

The limitations of the study are not explicitly addressed. For example:

Were there any challenges in obtaining reliable data or ensuring compliance during the implementation of interventions?

Could other potential contaminants (e.g., heavy metals, aflatoxins) also be relevant in the context of Lanna cuisine?

Future research directions should be outlined more clearly. For instance, exploring how the model performs when scaled up to larger regions or adapted for international use could be valuable.

Conclusion

The manuscript presents a robust and well-thought-out framework for improving food safety in traditional Lanna cuisine. The proposed "Laab Nuer Model" is technically sound and supported by appropriate data and statistical analysis. With its focus on practical interventions and local relevance, the study has the potential to significantly reduce foodborne illnesses in northern Thailand while also serving as a model for other regions and food types.

To further strengthen the manuscript, the authors should focus on improving clarity, enhancing visual presentation, and expanding the discussion of generalizability and limitations. These adjustments will not only improve the readability of the manuscript but also increase its impact and relevance to a broader audience.

This study is a valuable contribution to the field of food safety and is suitable for publication after minor revisions.

Reviewer #4: Review Comments to the Author

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript titled “The Development of the Laab Nuer Model for food safety management in handling traditional Lanna cuisine at Thailand.” The manuscript presents an important and culturally relevant initiative in food safety management through a structured three-level approach (upstream–midstream–downstream) rooted in the context of Lanna cuisine in Chiang Rai, Thailand.

Your study offers valuable practical insights, especially with its use of real-world contamination tests (e.g., Paraquat and E. coli), and the community-based model you propose has significant potential for public health and local food system improvement.

However, the manuscript requires several important revisions to improve its clarity, scientific rigor, and compliance with PLOS ONE editorial standards:

1. Technical Soundness and Methodology

While your conceptual design is thoughtful, the sampling strategies, tool validation, and detailed methodology need further elaboration. For example, details about how participants (consumers, restaurants, market vendors) were selected, and how questionnaires were developed and validated (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, factor analysis) are missing or underexplained. Additionally, claims regarding contamination reduction or consumer behavior impact should be supported with more robust statistical comparisons.

2. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis is appropriate in general terms (e.g., One-Way ANOVA for consumer survey data), but its application is not rigorous enough. Assumptions (normality, homogeneity), effect sizes, confidence intervals, and post-hoc tests are not addressed. Moreover, the E. coli results are promising but reported descriptively; they would benefit from a formal statistical test (e.g., paired t-test) to confirm significance.

3. Data Availability

Currently, it is unclear whether all underlying raw data (e.g., individual sample results, questionnaire responses) are publicly accessible or included in supplementary files. According to PLOS data policy, authors are required to make all relevant data fully available without restriction. Please clarify this in a formal Data Availability Statement and ensure all datasets are either uploaded or linked to a public repository.

4. Language and Presentation

The manuscript needs substantial English language revision. There are frequent grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and terminology misuse (e.g., “consume” instead of “consumer level”). Figures and tables also require improved resolution and clearer captions. Professional language editing is highly recommended to ensure clarity and accessibility to an international audience.

5. Model Justification and Broader Context

While the “Laab Nuer Model” is a promising localized framework, its theoretical foundation and originality should be more clearly articulated. Why is this model unique, and how does it differ from existing food safety frameworks (e.g., HACCP)? Additionally, the discussion would be enriched by engagement with international literature to contextualize the model globally.

6. Application and Scalability

The conclusion mentions the potential application of this model in other contexts such as supermarkets or flea markets. However, no concrete strategies or considerations are provided. Discussing barriers, facilitators, and adaptation strategies would significantly enhance the generalizability of your findings.

Final Comments:

This is an important and timely contribution to food safety research in traditional food systems. I encourage the authors to revise the manuscript with close attention to scientific transparency, linguistic clarity, and statistical robustness. With these improvements, the paper will offer strong value for both public health researchers and food policy stakeholders.

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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: reviewer_report_malicakir.docx

Dear Dr. KEAWDOUNGLEK,

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 Aug 10 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 you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Karthikeyan Venkatachalam, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: The revised manuscript has adequately addressed all previous comments and concerns. The authors have provided a comprehensive and well-structured study on the development of the "Laab Nuer Model" for food safety management in traditional Lanna cuisine. The methodology is sound, the data supports the conclusions, and the statistical analysis has been performed rigorously. The manuscript is written in clear and standard English, and all underlying data have been made available as per PLOS ONE's data policy. The study contributes valuable insights into food safety management and aligns with global best practices. The manuscript is now acceptable for publication. Within my own research field, I can't offer any more opinions on this.

Reviewer #4: Reviewer Comments to the Author

Dear Authors,

I appreciate your effort in revising the manuscript. The revised version demonstrates improvement in structure and clarity, and addresses some of the concerns previously raised. However, several important issues remain either only partially resolved or insufficiently addressed, and further revisions are necessary before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

1. Language and Clarity

Although minor language edits were applied throughout the manuscript, significant issues with grammar, sentence construction, and scientific clarity remain (e.g., use of terms such as “consume level,” “may be received knowledge”). These affect the intelligibility of the work.

Recommendation: Please seek professional English editing service to ensure clarity and fluency appropriate for international publication.

2. Conceptual Framework of the Laab Nuer Model

You have now defined the Laab Nuer Model in terms of upstream, midstream, and downstream components, and included a conceptual diagram. However, it remains unclear why this specific dish (“Laab Nuer”) was chosen to model general food safety behavior. The cultural justification and theoretical rationale are still insufficiently developed.

Recommendation:

Elaborate on the theoretical foundation of the model and its potential for broader application.

Discuss how this model aligns or differs from internationally recognized frameworks such as HACCP or WHO guidelines.

Strengthen conceptual integration in both Methods and Discussion sections.

3. Methodological Transparency

Improvements have been made in explaining the use of purposive sampling, and some methodological details have been added (e.g., IOC, Cronbach's alpha). However:

The criteria for selecting restaurants using purposive sampling remain vague.

The actual questionnaire remains inaccessible, and response items are not described.

The data collection instruments and their validation still lack detailed documentation.

Recommendation:

Include clear selection criteria for participants and settings.

Provide the questionnaire as supplementary material.

Describe how validity and reliability were assessed.

4. Statistical Reporting

The application of one-way ANOVA is noted, but statistical assumptions (normality, homoscedasticity) are not evaluated. Also, effect sizes or confidence intervals are not reported, reducing the robustness of the interpretation.

Recommendation:

Explicitly test and report assumptions for ANOVA.

Include effect sizes (e.g., eta-squared) and interpret findings accordingly.

5. Discussion and International Context

The manuscript continues to emphasize local observations without adequately situating them within international food safety literature. Global guidelines (FAO/WHO, HACCP) are minimally referenced and not critically compared to the study’s findings.

Recommendation:

Integrate relevant international food safety studies.

Discuss how your findings align with or diverge from established global practices.

6. Ethics and Data Availability

While ethical approval is mentioned and verbal informed consent is reported, there is no justification for why written consent was not obtained. The PLOS ONE data sharing policy also appears insufficiently addressed.

Recommendation:

Justify the use of verbal rather than written consent.

Clearly state where and how the underlying data are available or justify any restrictions.

Summary Recommendation: Major Revisions

The manuscript contributes a culturally grounded framework to address food safety practices in traditional cuisine settings, which is commendable. However, to meet PLOS ONE publication standards, the manuscript requires substantial improvements in conceptual development, methodological detail, statistical rigor, and alignment with international standards.

Reviewer #5: Research Topic: The development of the “Laab Nuer Model” for food safety management

in handling traditional Lanna cuisine at Thailand

Reviewer comments:

In my opinion, the revised manuscript entitled 'The development of the Laab Nuer Model for food safety management in handling traditional Lanna cuisine at Thailand' is quite comprehensive. However, it is necessary to revise the text further before it can be published.

1. As I cannot see whether the authors have comprehensively addressed the previous reviewer’s comments, I have a question about this revised version: what is the rationale for determining this sample size?

2. Line 94 and 209: The term E. coli and EMB agar should be written out in full initially before using the abbreviated form.

3. Please carefully check the reference format in both reference lists and content following the journal format throughout the manuscript.

4. Equipment such as HPLC and column should include the manufacturer's brand, model, city, and country of origin.

5. All test kits should include the manufacturer's brand, city, and country of origin.

6. A statistical analysis section should be included to describe the experimental design, number of analytical replicates, and variance analysis methods, and the analytical tools employed.

7. Figures 3 and 4 should display error bars, and if statistical analysis indicates significant differences, these should be marked with appropriate symbols.

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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: Reviewer comments-Plosone.pdf

<p>The Development of the “Laab Nuer Model” for food safety management in handling traditional Lanna cuisine in Thailand

PONE-D-24-37780R3

Dear Dr. KEAWDOUNGLEK,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Karthikeyan Venkatachalam, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #5: 5.1 As I cannot see whether the authors have comprehensively addressed the previous reviewer’s comments, I have a question about this revised version: what is the rationale for determining this sample size?

Recommendation: the comment has been addressed.

5.2 Line 94 and 209: The term E. coli and EMB agar should be written out in full initially before using the abbreviated form.

Recommendation: the comment has been addressed.

5.3 Please carefully check the reference format in both reference lists and content following the journal format throughout the manuscript.

Recommendation: the comment has been addressed.

5.4 Equipment such as HPLC and column should include the manufacturer's brand, model, city, and country of origin.

Recommendation: the comment has been addressed.

5.5 All test kits should include the manufacturer's brand, city, and country of origin.

Recommendation: the comment has been addressed.

5.6 A statistical analysis section should be included to describe the experimental design, number of analytical replicates, and variance analysis methods, and the analytical tools employed.

Recommendation: the comment has been addressed.

5.7 Figures 4 (3) and 5(4) should display error bars, and if statistical analysis indicates significant differences, these should be marked with appropriate symbols.

The revision:

Recommendation: the comment has been addressed.

**********

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 #5: No

**********