Consumers’ psychological constructs regarding hybrid meat products: A scoping review protocol

Jasmijn de Veld; Ceren Pekdemir; Gill ten Hoor

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0343059

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 12, 2025
7 Jan 2026 Decision Letter - António Raposo, Editor Dear Dr. Pekdemir, 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 Feb 21 2026 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 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, António Raposo 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. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 3. 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 . 4. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file “PRISMA-P checklist - seperate file.docx”. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload. 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. 6. 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 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, The manuscript presents a well-defined scoping review protocol, addressing a current and relevant topic in light of the environmental and health challenges associated with meat consumption. The introduction is clear, well-structured, and contextualizes hybrid meat products as a promising strategy for transitioning to more sustainable dietary patterns, demonstrating theoretical consistency and good articulation with existing literature. As suggestions for methodological improvement, in the methods section, note that the manuscript presents separate subtopics, such as research question, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and types of sources. We suggest that these contents be kept integrated into the larger topic "Methods," in accordance with the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute. Furthermore, the content currently presented in the subtopic "Types of sources" could be directly incorporated into the inclusion criteria, contributing to greater clarity and organization of the text. It is also recommended that the manuscript include at least the main descriptors used in a standardized way in the search strategies, even if the complete strategies are available in supplementary material, in order to strengthen the transparency and reproducibility of the protocol. Finally, it is suggested to include page numbering corresponding to the items of the PRISMA-P checklist, facilitating the monitoring of compliance with reporting guidelines. Overall, this is a methodologically consistent protocol, well aligned with international guidelines for scoping reviews and with the potential to offer a relevant contribution to the field. With minor adjustments to the organization and presentation of the method, the manuscript is likely to be further strengthened. Reviewer #2: The use of AI is explicitly stated, which is positive in terms of transparency. However, the description is insufficiently detailed to guarantee reproducibility: It does not explain how ChatGPT was used (general prompt, iterative refinement, validation by experts). Furthermore, it is unclear whether the terms suggested by the AI were checked against controlled vocabularies (MeSH, APA Thesaurus, CINAHL Headings). There is a potential incongruity: a preliminary search in June 2025 and a final search scheduled for January 2026. It would be important to clarify whether the strategy will be updated or revalidated before the final search, especially considering the use of emerging terms in an innovative field such as hybrid foods. Although it is mentioned that the complete strategy is in Appendix 2, the main text could indicate: the use of Boolean operators; the searched fields (ti, ab, kw); and the cross-database adaptation strategy. ****** 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: Rodrigo Assis Neves Dantas Dantas 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.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343059.r001
Revision 1
26 Jan 2026 Author Response Dear Reviewers, Thank you very much for your feedback. We hereby respond to the points raised: 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 We have rechecked the PLOS ONE style requirements and confirm that we fully meet the PLOS ONE’s style requirements now. 2. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. All available data will be made publicly available on the Open Science Framework. We have received a confirmation on January 26, 2026 from Plos ONE that the information was updated on our behalf. We have received the instruction to not include it in the Manuscript itself as the data availability statement will be published alongside our manuscript should it be accepted for publication. 3. 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. We have added the heading “Supporting Information” to the manuscript. Furthermore, we have updated the captions of the supporting materials to S1 Appendix: PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist, S2 Appendix: Search Strategy, and S3 Appendix: Data Extraction Form. We also updated the in-text citations accordingly to refer to S1 Appendix, S2 Appendix, and S3 Appendix. 4. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file “PRISMA-P checklist - seperate file.docx”. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload. The updated PRISMA P-checklist is now attached in PDF format in the appendix. 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. Not applicable. 6. 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. The reference list has been reviewed and no additional changes were made. Reviewer #1: Dear Authors, - The manuscript presents a well-defined scoping review protocol, addressing a current and relevant topic in light of the environmental and health challenges associated with meat consumption. The introduction is clear, well-structured, and contextualizes hybrid meat products as a promising strategy for transitioning to more sustainable dietary patterns, demonstrating theoretical consistency and good articulation with existing literature. Thank you very much. - As suggestions for methodological improvement, in the methods section, note that the manuscript presents separate subtopics, such as research question, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and types of sources. We suggest that these contents be kept integrated into the larger topic "Methods," in accordance with the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute. Thank you very much for your suggestions. We changed this as suggested. - Furthermore, the content currently presented in the subtopic "Types of sources" could be directly incorporated into the inclusion criteria, contributing to greater clarity and organization of the text. We have deleted the sub-heading ‘types of sources’, so that this section is directly incorporated into the inclusion criteria. - It is also recommended that the manuscript include at least the main descriptors used in a standardized way in the search strategies, even if the complete strategies are available in supplementary material, in order to strengthen the transparency and reproducibility of the protocol. In order to strengthen the transparency and reproducibility of the protocol the following sentences have been added to the text: ‘’The Boolean operator OR was used to combine synonymous terms and closely related concepts within the search strategy.’’ ‘’MeSH terms were used where available to improve search precision.’’ ‘’A cross-database adoption strategy will be used to ensure a comprehensive and systematic identification of relevant literature.’’ - Finally, it is suggested to include page numbering corresponding to the items of the PRISMA-P checklist, facilitating the monitoring of compliance with reporting guidelines. This is done in the updated PRISMA P-checklist attached in the appendix. See also our response to the editor. - Overall, this is a methodologically consistent protocol, well aligned with international guidelines for scoping reviews and with the potential to offer a relevant contribution to the field. With minor adjustments to the organization and presentation of the method, the manuscript is likely to be further strengthened. Thank you very much. Reviewer #2: - The use of AI is explicitly stated, which is positive in terms of transparency. However, the description is insufficiently detailed to guarantee reproducibility: It does not explain how ChatGPT was used (general prompt, iterative refinement, validation by experts). Furthermore, it is unclear whether the terms suggested by the AI were checked against controlled vocabularies (MeSH, APA Thesaurus, CINAHL Headings). Thank you very much for your feedback. We have detailed the description of using ChatGPT by including the following text: ‘’To supplement this process, ChatGPT was consulted to identify additional terminology and variations associated with hybrid meat products, using the prompt ‘Generate database-appropriate synonyms and related terms for “hybrid meat” that can be used in a search string for both PubMed and EBSCOhost.’. The proposed synonyms were reviewed by the research team and incorporated into the search strategy where appropriate. New terms were cross-checked against MeSH.’’ - There is a potential incongruity: a preliminary search in June 2025 and a final search scheduled for January 2026. It would be important to clarify whether the strategy will be updated or revalidated before the final search, especially considering the use of emerging terms in an innovative field such as hybrid foods. Thank you very much for bringing this point to our attention. The strategy remained unchanged for the final search, as we believe it remains current and appropriate for the field. For clarity, we have added the following sentence to the manuscript: ‘’The preliminary search strategy will be applied without modification during the final search as it remained appropriate.’’ - Although it is mentioned that the complete strategy is in Appendix 2, the main text could indicate: the use of Boolean operators; the searched fields (ti, ab, kw); and the cross-database adaptation strategy. The following sentences have been added to the manuscript for further clarification: ‘’The Boolean operator OR was used to combine synonymous terms and closely related concepts within the search strategy.’’ ‘’MeSH terms were used where available to improve search precision.’’ ‘’A cross-database adoption strategy will be used to ensure a comprehensive and systematic identification of relevant literature.’’ Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343059.r002
1 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - António Raposo, Editor Consumers’ Psychological Constructs regarding Hybrid Meat Products: a Scoping Review Protocol PONE-D-25-63842R1 Dear Dr. Pekdemir, 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, António Raposo Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions? Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics. You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study. Reviewer #1: After reviewing the revised version of the manuscript, I consider that the previously made suggestions have been adequately addressed. At this time, I have no further contributions to add. Congratulations! ****** 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: Rodrigo Assis Neves Dantas Dantas ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343059.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - António Raposo, Editor PONE-D-25-63842R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Pekdemir, 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 Dr. António Raposo Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343059.r004

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 .