Dear Dr. Shanbel Besufkad,

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  Nov 02 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,

Nesrein M. Hashem

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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://sanad.iau.ir/journal/ijas/Article/665354_1132664?jid=665354_1132664&_action=article&_kw=Kleiber+ratio&kw=122655

https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2405844024010028

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

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

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings 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. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The Menz sheep community-based breeding program was financially supported by CGIAR initiative on “Sustainable Animal Productivity for Livelihoods, Nutrition and Gender inclusion (SAPLING),” Accelerating the Impact of CGIAR Climate Research in Africa (AICCRA) project, Amhara Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI) and Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR).”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments 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 and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.”

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

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

7. 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: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Reviewer #1: There are a lot of typographical errors. Please look in to it before final resubmission. All the grammatical errors and sentence corrections must be done.

Results section has one heading: environmental effects. All of your results are given under this which gives a wrong impression. Please edit accordingly.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for inviting manuscript number PONE-D-25-45437: Genetic evaluation of growth rate and efficiency-related traits in Menz sheep. I try to review comments, and I will give detailed below

Title

consider shortening to “Genetic parameters of growth and efficiency traits in Menz sheep” for conciseness. I also saw an article on Dorper at the same research center by same author

• “Efficiency-related traits” could be specified (e.g., Kleiber ratio, relative growth rate). Kleiber is not commonly used. Put research gap

Abstract

• L14–16: The phrase “traits related to growth efficiency are economically important and genetic improvement of these traits is vital” is slightly repetitive. Suggest: “Growth efficiency traits are economically important, and their genetic improvement is essential.”

• L17–22: The abstract lists too many traits (6MW, ADG1, ADG2, ADG3, KR1, etc.) without context. This overwhelms the reader. Consider grouping (e.g., “average daily gain, Kleiber ratios, efficiency of growth, and relative growth rate”).

• L29–32: “Direct additive genetic effect as the unique known random effect was the best fitting model …” → grammatically awkward. Suggest: “The model with direct additive genetic effect alone provided the best fit for most traits, except 6MW and ADG1, where maternal effects were also important.”

• L33–37: Heritability estimates are listed as a long series of numbers. Better to summarize ranges (e.g., “heritability ranged from 0.21 to 0.48 across traits”).

• L42–44: “Selection for 6MW would be more effective …” → Please clarify why six-month weight is the most informative trait. Already published so many times, repeated finding. Think new idea, a new suggestion that can advance the ongoing CBBP

Keywords

• Good selection, but you may add “Menz sheep” explicitly as a keyword to improve discoverability.

Introduction

• L49–56: Good background, but sentence “Small ruminants have been significantly supporting the livelihoods of smallholder farmers…” is awkward. Suggest: “Small ruminants play a major role in supporting the livelihoods of smallholder farmers across Ethiopia’s diverse ecological zones.”

• L57–66: The problem statement (low productivity despite adaptation) is strong. However, you need to clearly define the research gap: Few studies have estimated genetic parameters for efficiency traits (Kleiber ratio, RGR, GE) in Menz sheep.

• L67–72: The introduction to Kleiber ratio is appropriate, but the rationale for including efficiency traits should be emphasized. Add supporting references from similar indigenous sheep studies.

• Kleiber? I did not understand its importance

• L73–78: The objective statement is clear, but could be sharper: “This study aimed to estimate genetic parameters for growth rate and efficiency-related traits in Menz sheep under community-based breeding programs.”

Materials and Methods

• Location & flock description (L80–96):

o Good detail about geography and climate. However, some redundancy (adaptability of Menz sheep already mentioned in Introduction).

o Suggest summarizing climatic info in fewer words, and moving references on adaptability to Introduction.

• Data collection (L97–111):

o L97: “New born lambs were weighted” → “weighed.”

o L105: “…primarily focused on using six months weight as selection criteria” → “as the main selection criterion.” Since already described by other author just cite the previous authors. The procedure of CBBP selection is as described by ----------

o L109–111: Provide clarity: “Rams were rotated annually between groups to minimize inbreeding.” Still duplication

• Dataset (L112–126):

o Excellent that you specify sample size (22,712 records, 6,528 ewes).

o L117–118: Typo: ADG1 repeated twice (birth–weaning and weaning–6 months). One should be ADG2.

• Trait definitions (L127–137):

o Equations should be formatted clearly with subscripts and consistent notation.

o L133: Efficiency of growth formula is confusing; add units or explanation (percentage change relative to initial weight).

• Statistical models (L138–192):

o L172: “…when the change in maximum log L between the last two iterations is less than 10-4” → please write as 1e-4 for clarity.

o Genetic trend analysis (L190–192): Provide more detail on the time scale (2009–2023). Were all traits analyzed for trends or only key ones? Need clarification

Results

• L193–207: Environmental effects are described well. However:

o Phrase “pedigree structures utilized in this study are fair enough to accurate genetic parameters” → awkward. Suggest: “The pedigree structure was adequate for accurate estimation of genetic parameters.”

• L208–217: Heritability values should again be summarized in ranges, with key examples. The full list can stay in the table.

• L218–229: Correlations are strong, but the text is hard to follow. Suggest breaking into sub-sections: (i) within-period correlations, (ii) across-period correlations.

• Figures 1–3: Ensure captions explain the units of genetic trend (kg/year, g/day/year, etc.).

Discussion

• L231–239: Good explanation of environmental effects. Could improve by citing more Ethiopian sheep literature beyond Baluchi/Kermani references.

• L243–246: The hormonal explanation for sex differences is good, but speculative. Please cite a specific physiological reference.

• L248–252: The finding that twins were more efficient pre-weaning but less efficient post-weaning is very interesting. This needs stronger discussion and reference support.

• L260–283: Discussion on heritability estimates is strong. However, some sentences are too long and repetitive. Simplify.

• L285–307: The point about unfavorable pre- vs. post-weaning correlations is very important. Please emphasize its implication: selection should consider multi-trait indices to avoid negative correlated responses.

Conclusion

• L315–329: Well-structured, but slightly repetitive. Suggest trimming.

• Add practical recommendation: e.g., “Breeding programs should prioritize six-month weight while monitoring efficiency-related traits to ensure balanced progress.” Too many times documented- see previous article including Bonga, Doyogena

References

• Generally good coverage, including Ethiopian studies.

• Some inconsistencies:

o L366: “and a pastoral system of ethiopia” → capitalize Ethiopia.

o Several references (e.g., #5) are poorly formatted and need editing.

• Please ensure consistent journal abbreviations (Small Ruminant Res. vs. Small Rumin Res.).

Tables & Figures

• Tables are informative but crowded. Suggest splitting if possible.

• Use consistent superscript letters for multiple comparisons (currently a, b, c, but sometimes overlapping).

• Figures of genetic trends should include error bars or confidence intervals.

**********

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: Kebede_comment_Menz.docx

Genetic evaluation of growth rate and efficiency-related traits in Menz sheep

PONE-D-25-45437R1

Dear Dr. Besufkad

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,

Nesrein M. Hashem

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE