Dear Dr. Zahid,

The statistical analysis appears to have been conducted appropriately and rigorously, supporting the interpretation of the results.

The data underlying the study seem to be sufficiently available to support transparency and reproducibility. This strengthens the reliability of the manuscript.

The manuscript is generally well-written and presented in intelligible English. However, there are a few minor grammatical and typographical errors that should be carefully revised during the final editing stage to improve clarity and readability.

--> -->-->Reviewer 02:-->-->-->-->The manuscript treats an important issue regarding the food safety and consumers' health that is the replacement of the synthetic antioxidants with natural ones.-->-->-->-->The overall quality of the paper is high, however, I have some minor remarks.-->-->-->-->1. The Introduction provides the necessary strong background to justify the research. However, the authors provide information about the amount of fishballs produced in 2015. This is old data, please, provide more recent.-->-->-->-->2. How many fishballs does the batch contain for analysis? Please describe in more details. This is important for the statistical evaluation.-->-->-->-->2. How have the authors decided to use 1% fig powder? Why haven't they considered various concentrations of this powder?-->-->-->-->3. for each of the analysis , please provide the number of replicates and also the calculations for TBARS and DPPH.-->-->-->-->4. Although the one way ANOVA is generally ok, here tow way ANOVA might be applied as well to assess the treatment , storage time and their interaction.-->-->-->-->Editor' s Comments:-->-->-->-->Authors need to improve the discussion and future recommendations in the MS. -->-->-->-->-->============================-->--> -->-->Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 08 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,

Shafaq Fatima

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 your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

This research received a grant from the University Grant Commission of Bangladesh.

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.

5. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

6. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

7. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

8. 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. 

Additional Editor Comments :

Dear Mr. Zahid

Thanks very much for submitting this paper to Plos One.

[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: Comments to the Author

The manuscript presents a technically sound piece of research with adequate experimental design and relevant data that support the conclusions. The study is well-structured, and the findings regarding the effect of BHT, AA, and fig powder on the physicochemical properties of fish balls are clearly presented.

The statistical analysis appears to have been conducted appropriately and rigorously, supporting the interpretation of the results.

The data underlying the study seem to be sufficiently available to support transparency and reproducibility. This strengthens the reliability of the manuscript.

The manuscript is generally well-written and presented in intelligible English. However, there are a few minor grammatical and typographical errors that should be carefully revised during the final editing stage to improve clarity and readability.

Overall, the study provides valuable insights into the potential of fig powder as a natural antioxidant alternative to synthetic compounds. With minor language polishing, the manuscript would be suitable for publication.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript treats an important issue regarding the food safety and consumers' health that is the replacement of the synthetic antioxidants with natural ones.

The overall quality of the paper is high, however, I have some minor remarks.

1. The Introduction provides the necessary strong background to justify the research. However, the authors provide information about the amount of fishballs produced in 2015. This is old data, please, provide more recent.

2. How many fishballs does the batch contain for analysis? Please describe in more details. This is important for the statistical evaluation.

2. How have the authors decided to use 1% fig powder? Why haven't they considered various concentrations of this powder?

3. for each of the analysis , please provide the number of replicates and also the calculations for TBARS and DPPH.

4. Although the one way ANOVA is generally ok, here tow way ANOVA might be applied as well to assess the treatment , storage time and their interaction.

**********

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: Yes:  Prof. Dr. Teodora Popova

**********

[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.

Assessment of the quality attributes and oxidative stability of fish balls with the addition of fig powder during frozen storage

PONE-D-25-39831R1

Dear Dr. Zahid,

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,

Shafaq Fatima

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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: (No Response)

**********

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: Comments to the Author

The revised version of the manuscript has adequately addressed all the comments raised in the previous review round. The study now presents a technically sound and scientifically valid piece of research, with clear data that fully support the stated conclusions.

The experimental design appears rigorous, with appropriate controls and replication. Statistical analyses were conducted properly and are suitable for the type of data collected. The presentation of results is logical and easy to follow.

The authors have also made all underlying data available in compliance with the journal’s data policy, which adds transparency and reliability to the findings. Furthermore, the manuscript is well written, with clear and concise English that meets the standards required for publication.

Overall, this manuscript is now suitable for publication in its current form.

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed very well all my recommendations, except the calculation of TBARS. Please clarify if a standard curve was created and how.

**********

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: Yes:  Teodora Popova

**********