Sensory trial of camel milk powder among pastoralist communities of the Somali Region, Ethiopia

Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim; Seid Mohammed Ali; Yahya Maidane Osman; Fathiya Budul Ismail; Mohamed Omar Osman; Pauline Rouchon; Mukhtar Harir Hussein; Abdifatah Muktar Muhummed; Ramadan Budul Yusuf; Raymond Place; Jan Hattendorf; Rea Tschopp; Pascal Mäser; Jakob Zinsstag

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0333358

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 9, 2025
15 Jul 2025 Decision Letter - Awatif Al-Judaibi, Editor Dear Dr. Ibrahim, 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 29 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, Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, PhD 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 include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met. Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript. 3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [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: 1- Could you clarify how the milk samples were standardized—in terms of temperature, texture, visual appearance, container type, and environmental conditions—to minimize potential bias during the sensory evaluation? 2- To what extent might cultural preferences or taboos regarding powdered milk in pastoralist communities have influenced the results? Can this be discussed further? 3 - Do you consider your findings generalizable to other camel milk–consuming populations in Ethiopia or across East Africa? 4 - Could you elaborate on how your findings might inform local nutrition policies, dairy industry practices, or camel milk market expansion strategies? 5 - Considering that camel milk powder undergoes heat processing, did your study evaluate potential nutrient degradation (e.g., vitamin C, folate) or alterations in bioactive compounds that may impact both the sensory properties and nutritional value compared to fresh milk? Reviewer #2: Dear Editor, The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic related to the sensory acceptance of powdered camel milk among pastoralist communities in the Somali Region of Ethiopia. The study design is relevant, the data collection approach is well-structured, and the results are generally clear and well-supported by statistical analysis. However, the manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication. First, there are numerous grammatical errors, typographical issues, and inconsistencies in formatting throughout the text, particularly in the introduction, materials and methods, and discussion sections. ABSTRACT: 1- Correct grammatical issues (e.g., "data were summarized"; revise awkward phrases like "sensoric cross over experiment") 2- Ensure consistency in terminology (e.g., "powdered camel milk" vs. "reconstituted powdered milk") 3- Clarify ambiguous terms (e.g., define "urban pastoralist") and provide actual values where significance is discussed 4- Define all abbreviations at first use in the abstract and in the main text INTRODUCTION 1- Correct grammatical and structural errors. The sentence “There are several studies have examined…” is grammatically incorrect. It should be revised to: “Although several studies have examined the nutritional benefits and technological processing of camel milk..." 2- Improve flow and coherence between paragraphs. The paragraph transitions are weak. Consider improving logical flow between paragraphs (from traditional uses to industrial processing to the research gap). 3- When mentioning “75,000 tons of camel milk are produced annually in Ethiopia”, clarify if this is from FAO, a national estimate, or another source. Add citation and mention the year. 4- Strengthen the articulation of the research gap and study objective. Materials and methods 1- The section is titled “METHOD AND MATERIALS”, but the correct conventional order is “Materials and Methods.” Please revise the heading. 2- Add figure about site location map of the study area 3- “The study population for this study was all randomly selected s all pastoralist communities...” contains repetition and an error. It should be: “The study population included randomly selected pastoralist communities from the Fafan and Shebelle Zones.” 4- Study design: "Sensoric cross over experiment study design" is awkward and redundant. Use: “A single-blinded sensory crossover design was employed…” 5- Sampling technique: Provide more details about how the sampling frame was constructed. How were households or individuals listed for random selection? How was systematic sampling done practically? 6- Use consistent terminology throughout the document. Alternate use of “powdered camel milk,” “reconstituted camel milk,” and “camel milk powder” may confuse readers. Choose one and stick with it. 7- Clearly define each independent variable listed, not only the dependent one. For example: “Place of residence” – Urban vs. rural? / “Milk expenditure” – Monthly? Per liter? 8- For Study variables: generate a paragraph that integrates the variables into a coherent narrative, which is easier to read, especially in formal academic writing. 9- For Data Collection Tools and Validation:Clarify How many data collectors and supervisors were involved? / What was the language of the questionnaire and how was it validated linguistically? / Was there any sensory training for participants or guidance on the Likert scale? 10- Data analysis: Clearly explain how missing data were handled. Specify any criteria for variable inclusion in multivariate analysis. RESULTS 1- Include exact p-values for all comparisons, and always report the statistical test used in the table captions or text. 2- Consistency is needed in reporting values: ( Mean values are reported with different spacing/format: 4.1(±0.78)) CI ranges should have spaces after commas and be consistent: (1.2 – 4.3) 3- Several paragraphs repeat information already presented. For example: The T-test sections mention the same means and CIs already shown in the bullet-pointed summary above. 4- For Multivariable Analysis Section: The section title is unclear: “Bi-variable and multivariable analysis to Preference powder of camel milk” Clearly list which variables were included in the final multivariable model and how they were selected (e.g., p < 0.2 in bivariable, theory-based?). 5- Add any abbreviations used in tables (AOR, COR, CI) as footnotes if not defined in the main text. 6- In tables 5 and 6, consider using a bar chart or stacked column graph to visualize preferences and willingness to pay for better reader understanding. DISCUSSION 1- The section contains multiple grammar and syntax issues. One major error: “There is no significant difference mean willingness to pay between fresh camel milk and fresh camel milk…” → should be "“…between fresh camel milk and powdered camel milk…” 2- The discussion could be strengthened by addressing: - Why powdered milk still scored relatively high despite preference for fresh. - Implications for future commercialization or nutrition programs. - Consider adding a limitation paragraph CONCLUSION 1- Suggest condensing the conclusion into a shorter paragraph; Several ideas (about shelf life and promotion strategies) are repeated with slightly different wording. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The sentence formation of the paper is poor and whole manuscript needs to be proof read to improve English. “Pastoralist who preferred…” / “Acceptance powdered camel milk” The manuscript should be written using a regular font style Double-check and unify capitalization (See the PDF file) Review tables: p-value (p in italic) and correct the recurring typo “Pace of residence” → should be “Place of residence” in multiple tables and text. ****** 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: PONE-D-25-31077 revised.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333358.r001
Revision 1
12 Aug 2025 Author Response Reviewers' comments: Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: 1- Could you clarify how the milk samples were standardized—in terms of temperature, texture, visual appearance, container type, and environmental conditions—to minimize potential bias during the sensory evaluation? Reviewer's Responses: Thank you for this important point. We have clarified in the “Data Quality Control” section that both milk types were standardized in volume (20 ml), dilution, temperature, container, and setting to ensure consistency and reduce bias. 2- To what extent might cultural preferences or taboos regarding powdered milk in pastoralist communities have influenced the results? Can this be discussed further? Reviewer's Responses: We appreciate this insightful comment. We have added a paragraph in the Discussion and Limitations sections highlighting the potential influence of cultural preference for fresh milk despite the single-blinded design. 3- Do you consider your findings generalizable to other camel milk–consuming populations in Ethiopia or across East Africa? Reviewer's Responses: Thank you for the thoughtful suggestion. We have addressed this in the Discussion, noting that findings may be transferable to other East African pastoralist settings with similar contexts. 4- Could you elaborate on how your findings might inform local nutrition policies, dairy industry practices, or camel milk market expansion strategies? Reviewer's Responses: We accept this suggestion. We expanded the Discussion to outline implications for nutrition programming, rural commercialization, and cold-chain alternatives. 5- Considering that camel milk powder undergoes heat processing, did your study evaluate potential nutrient degradation (e.g., vitamin C, folate) or alterations in bioactive compounds that may impact both the sensory properties and nutritional value compared to fresh milk? Reviewer's Responses: Thank you for raising this limitation. Our study did not assess nutrient loss, but this has now been acknowledged in the Discussion as an area for future research. Reviewer #2: The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic related to the sensory acceptance of powdered camel milk among pastoralist communities in the Somali Region of Ethiopia. The study design is relevant, the data collection approach is well-structured, and the results are generally clear and well-supported by statistical analysis. However, the manuscript requires substantial revisions before it can be considered for publication. First, there are numerous grammatical errors, typographical issues, and inconsistencies in formatting throughout the text, particularly in the introduction, materials and methods, and discussion sections. Reviewer's Responses: Thank you for highlighting this. We thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve grammar, punctuation, and formatting across all sections. ABSTRACT: 1. Correct grammatical issues (e.g., "data were summarized"; revise awkward phrases like "sensoric cross over experiment"). Reviewer's Responses: We appreciate the suggestion. Phrasing and clarity in the Abstract have been improved, and the term 'sensoric' has been replaced with 'sensory crossover design'. 2. Ensure consistency in terminology (e.g., "powdered camel milk" vs. "reconstituted powdered milk"). Reviewer's Responses: thanks we revised based on your comment 3. Clarify ambiguous terms (e.g., define "urban pastoralist") and provide actual values where significance is discussed. Reviewer's Responses: we corrected accordingly 4. Define all abbreviations at first use in the abstract and in the main text Reviewer's Responses: Thank you for the reminder. All abbreviations are now defined at first mention in both the text and table footnotes. INTRODUCTION 1. Correct grammatical and structural errors. The sentence “There are several studies have examined…” is grammatically incorrect. It should be revised to: “Although several studies have examined the nutritional benefits and technological processing of camel milk...". Reviewer's Responses: thank you very much we revised the grammar and corrected grammatical and structural errors. 2. Improve flow and coherence between paragraphs. The paragraph transitions are weak. Consider improving logical flow between paragraphs (from traditional uses to industrial processing to the research gap). Reviewer's Responses: We value this feedback. The Introduction was reorganized for better logical flow, and the source for camel milk production is now properly cited. 3. When mentioning “75,000 tons of camel milk are produced annually in Ethiopia”, clarify if this is from FAO, a national estimate, or another source. Add citation and mention the year. Reviewer's Responses: Thanks for reminding us, we added the citation properly 4. Strengthen the articulation of the research gap and study objective. Reviewer's Responses: Thanks, we revised and articulated well in the manuscript as you commented accordingly Materials and methods 1. The section is titled “METHOD AND MATERIALS”, but the correct conventional order is “Materials and Methods.” Please revise the heading. Reviewer's Responses: we followed the journal guideline mentioning “Method and materials” 2. Add figure about site location map of the study area. Reviewer's Responses: thanks for the helpful suggestion, we included the map in the document. 3. The study population for this study was all randomly selected s all pastoralist communities...” contains repetition and an error. It should be: “The study population included randomly selected pastoralist communities from the Fafan and Shebelle Zones.” 4. Reviewer's Responses: We appreciate this point and revised accordingly. 5. Study design: "Sensoric cross over experiment study design" is awkward and redundant. Use: “A single-blinded sensory crossover design was employed…” Reviewer's Responses: Thank you for pointing this out. We revised based on the on you comment. 6. Sampling technique: Provide more details about how the sampling frame was constructed. How were households or individuals listed for random selection? How was systematic sampling done practically? Reviewer's Responses: We appreciate this point. Details on household listings and systematic sampling have been expanded, and variable definitions are now integrated clearly. 7. Use consistent terminology throughout the document. Alternate use of “powdered camel milk,” “reconstituted camel milk,” and “camel milk powder” may confuse readers. Choose one and stick with it. Reviewer's Responses: we corrected it accordingly 8. Clearly define each independent variable listed, not only the dependent one. For example: “Place of residence” – Urban vs. rural? / “Milk expenditure” – Monthly? Per liter? Reviewer's Responses: we clearly re-written study variables and written as paragraph in the manuscript 9. For Study variables: generate a paragraph that integrates the variables into a coherent narrative, which is easier to read, especially in formal academic writing. Reviewer's Responses: we revised the based on your comment. 10. For Data Collection Tools and Validation: Clarify how many data collectors and supervisors were involved? / What was the language of the questionnaire and how was it validated linguistically? / Was there any sensory training for participants or guidance on the Likert scale? Reviewer's Responses: Thank you for pointing this out. We clarified that four data collectors and two supervisors were involved, the tool was translated into Somali, and participants received guidance on the Likert scale (without sensory training). Data analysis: 11. Clearly explain how missing data were handled. Reviewer's Responses: We appreciate the suggestion. Incomplete records were excluded from analysis, as now stated in the Data Analysis section. 12. Specify any criteria for variable inclusion in multivariate analysis. Reviewer's Responses: Thanks for the clarification request. We noted that variables with p < 0.2 in bivariate analysis were included in the multivariable model. Results 1. Include exact p-values for all comparisons, and always report the statistical test used in the table captions or text. Reviewer's Responses: Thank you for this helpful detail. We have corrected formatting and reported exact p-values throughout. 2. Consistency is needed in reporting values: (Mean values are reported with different spacing/format: 4.1(±0.78)) CI ranges should have spaces after commas and be consistent: (1.2 – 4.3). Reviewer's Responses: thanks, we corrected as you suggested 3. Several paragraphs repeat information already presented. For example: The T-test sections mention the same means and CIs already shown in the bullet-pointed summary above. Reviewer's Responses: Thank you for the observation. We have removed repetitive sections and streamlined the Results text. 4. For Multivariable Analysis Section: The section title is unclear: “Bi-variable and multivariable analysis to Preference powder of camel milk” Clearly list which variables were included in the final multivariable model and how they were selected (e.g., p < 0.2 in bivariable, theory-based?). Reviewer's Responses: We appreciate this comment. The section has been renamed and the selection method explained as you asked. 5. Add any abbreviations used in tables (AOR, COR, CI) as footnotes if not defined in the main text. Reviewer's Responses: Thank you for the suggestion. Abbreviations were added to all table footnotes. Visuals are suggested for future supplementary materials. 6. In tables 5 and 6, consider using a bar chart or stacked column graph to visualize preferences and willingness to pay for better reader understanding. Reviewer's Responses: we changed the data from the table into figures for better reader understanding. DISCUSSION The section contains multiple grammar and syntax issues. One major error: “There is no significant difference mean willingness to pay between fresh camel milk and fresh camel milk…” → should be "“…between fresh camel milk and powdered camel milk…”. Reviewer's Responses: We thank you for this insightful comment. It is now explained in the Discussion powdered milk may be valued for its shelf life and practicality. 1. The discussion could be strengthened by addressing: - Why powdered milk still scored relatively high despite preference for fresh. Reviewer's Responses: Thank you for the helpful comment. We added a brief explanation in the Discussion noting that powdered milk scored well due to its shelf life, convenience, and storage advantages. - Implications for future commercialization or nutrition programs. Reviewer's Responses: We appreciate this recommendation. We added implications for marketing, rural access, and nutrition strategy in the Discussion. Consider adding a limitation paragraph Reviewer's Responses: Thanks for the important reminder. A limitation paragraph has been added before the Conclusion. CONCLUSION 1. Suggest condensing the conclusion into a shorter paragraph; several ideas (about shelf life and promotion strategies) are repeated with slightly different wording. Reviewer's Responses: Thank you. We have revised and shortened the Conclusion to avoid repetition. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The sentence formation of the paper is poor and whole manuscript needs to be proof read to improve English. Pastoralist who preferred…” / “Acceptance powdered camel milk” The manuscript should be written using a regular font style Double-check and unify capitalization (See the PDF file) Review tables: p-value (p in italic) and correct the recurring typo “Pace of residence” → should be “Place of residence” in multiple tables and text. Reviewer's Responses: We appreciate the detail. Font, typos, capitalization, and formatting were carefully reviewed and corrected throughout the manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333358.r002
1 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Awatif Al-Judaibi, Editor Dear Dr. Ibrahim, 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 Oct 16 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, Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 2. 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. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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: After carefully reviewing the author’s responses to the previous comments, I am satisfied that all concerns have been thoroughly and appropriately addressed. The clarifications provided are adequate, and I have no additional comments at this stage. Reviewer #2: - Consider integrating the “Limitations” paragraph directly into the end of the Discussion section as a final subsection. - Following PLOS ONE formatting guidelines, Keep the full figure title and description in the figure caption only. “Figure legends” ****** 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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333358.r003
Revision 2
1 Sep 2025 Author Response Reviewer Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: - • Consider integrating the “Limitations” paragraph directly into the end of the Discussion section as a final subsection. • Following PLOS ONE formatting guidelines, keep the full figure title and description in the figure caption only. “Figure legends” Authors' Responses • Dear reviewer, Thank you for your valuable comments: we incorporated and integrated the “Limitations” paragraph directly into the end of the Discussion section as a final subsection as you suggested. • We appreciate your suggestion. By following PLOS ONE formatting guidelines, we kept the full figure title and description in the figure caption only. “Figure legends” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333358.r004
14 Sep 2025 Decision Letter - Awatif Al-Judaibi, Editor SENSORY TRIAL OF CAMEL MILK POWDER AMONG PASTORALIST COMMUNITIES OF THE SOMALI REGION, ETHIOPIA PONE-D-25-31077R2 Dear Dr. Ahmed Mohammed Ibrahim, 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, Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewer #2: Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #2: (No Response) ****** 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 #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333358.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Awatif Al-Judaibi, Editor PONE-D-25-31077R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ibrahim, 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. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. 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 Professor Awatif Abid Al-Judaibi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333358.r006

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 .