Peer Review History
Original SubmissionJune 16, 2022 |
---|
PONE-D-22-17293Quality of Oreochromis niloticus and Cynoscion virescens fillets and their by-products in flours make for inclusion in instant food productsPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gonçalves Oliveira, 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 27 2022 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. Please include the following items when submitting your revised 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, Ashokkumar Veeramuthu 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 2. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free. Upon resubmission, please provide the following: The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file) A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)” 3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: CAPES/Brazil through Programa Nacional de Cooperação Acadêmica na Amazônia (PROCAD/AM). Project approved 2018/L.1, in the postgraduate line in Biodiversity, production and animal health. All authors were equally awarded.
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. 4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: NO authors have competing interests Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 6. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. Additional Editor Comments: Editor Comments: 1. The authors must highlight the significance of this work by addressing the current problem statement, novelty, clear study objectives, and future direction in the introduction section. 2. In some sections, the discussion part is weak, please provide an in-depth discussion by comparing the most recent literature survey on this particular area. Also, when you make a comparison with reported literature, please consider referring to the most recent works (2019 – 2023). 3. This manuscript contains some technical and grammatical mistakes; the authors must go for a thorough technical and language check. 4. Please improve the quality of all the figure and tables, the present form did not meet the journal standard. [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? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. 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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The work describes ways of using fish filleting by-products. Studies in this line of research are very important, especially in Brazil, where most of the waste is still underused, and often improperly discarded. The work demonstrates the possibility of using filleting residues in the preparation of flour for human consumption. It is a robust work with a potential positive impact for the area of technology for fish products. However, some points must be improved so that the article can be published. Abstract: -The methodology for obtaining “Flavored flours” is not demonstrated Introduction -Line 64: studies that indicate the maximum size of the species must be cited and referenced -Line 66: the phrase “Most saltwater caught fish are imported.” has no relation to the context and should be excluded -It is not clear in the introduction the justification for the study of the species Cynoscion virescens. -The introduction does not defend the importance of studies on the quality and yield of fillets of the species studied. In particular for Nile tilapia, several studies have already addressed this issue (especially on centesimal composition, quality analysis performed in the study). Thus, the introduction must contemplate the novelty that the article brings in this field of study, in relation to articles already published. - Greater theoretical reference could be added on the production of fishmeal for human consumption, and the reason for developing flavored flours. Material and methods -Describe the origin of the fish used in the study -Describe method of stunning and slaughtering animals -Model, brand and country of origin data must be entered on all mentioned equipment. -line 117: review information: oven drying at 90°? This temperature seems excessive to me -line 122: which products were developed with the flours? This information is new in the article -line 125: We can only call it “flour flavored” if the authors carried out, for example, a chromatographic analysis to identify and quantify the volatile aromatic components present in the sample. Proving that in fact the flour has flavoring power. Empirically, we cannot classify anything. I suggest changing the title and revising the terms “flavored/flavored” throughout the article. -line 125: what is the final objective of these sweet and savory flavored flours? The rationale for these products should be shown in the introduction. -line 126: why were the flavored flours produced only with backbone flour? Why not also use head flour? -line 129: wouldn't it be monosodium glutamate? -line 135: after removing from the fire, what was the next methodological step to obtain the flour? - lines 128 to 139: were these ingredients used in these proportions according to the previous work? -line 140: the Arapaima gigas (paiche) carcass flour? -line 146 onwards: could have subtitles for the analyzes performed, for better organization of the text -line 150: how many fillet samples were analyzed? N=10? -line 174: mention the ABNT standards -lines 182-183: This resolution has already been revoked. Adapt the target microorganisms and their respective limits according to RDC 331/2019 and IN 60/2019, both from ANVISA. -Statistical design: what treatment of data was given for the analysis of fatty acids and amino acids? Results -The results section in general is confusing. Results could be grouped into subheadings (at least in relation to Test 1 and Test 2). -The presentation of the results is confused with the discussion. See below: -Line 198-199: this sentence belongs to Discussion -lines 211-212: this sentence belongs to Discussion -lines 221-222: this sentence belongs to Discussion -lines 223-226: these sentences belong to Discussion -lines 246-251: these sentences belong to Discussion -lines 255-258: these sentences belong to Discussion -lines 260-266: these sentences belong to Discussion -lines 276-279: these sentences belong to Discussion -lines 291-293: this sentence belongs to Discussion -lines 297-299: this sentence belongs to Discussion -lines 302-306: these sentences belong to Discussion -lines 319-323: these sentences belong to Discussion -lines 327-328: these sentences belong to Discussion -Lines 351-353: This information about the croaker (which does not appear in the methodology), makes it impossible to calculate the fillet yield and the comparison with the tilapia results. If the authors do not know the weight of the whole croaker, there is no way to specify the fillet yield (56.6% is a very high fillet yield), but if it was calculated based on the eviscerated fish, it does not represent the actual fillet yield. . So I suggest removing the yield results from the article. -Table 2: Standardize test letters of averages (put all superscripts). When there is no significant effect (P>0.05), it is not necessary to add letters after the means (add letters only when the effect was significant). Please review this in all tables. In addition, I could present Table 2 in the same way as Table 4 was presented, it facilitates the understanding of the effects. -Table 3: Why was it chosen to perform an analysis of the amino acid profile only for backbone flours? -Table 5 could be presented as Table 4 Discussion -Line 394: The authors report that a temperature of 90°C was used for the dehydration of the flours. However, it is known that high temperatures during drying lead to several irreversible biological or chemical reactions, as well as structural, physical and mechanical changes. Several works that developed fish meal used milder temperatures. What led the authors to use 90°C? -Line 398: Where is “RIISPOA [34]”, the correct one is [24] -Lines 400-405: Why is Aw important in this type of product? To describe. -Lines 406-408: it's confused -The discussion needs to be reformulated according to sentences that belong to this section, but are in the results. -Lines 428-430: The statement is unnecessary, since the work did not use MSM as raw material -Lines 461-462: is confused - Discussion about the fatty acid (Table 6) and amino acid contents of the flours (Table 3) should be inserted. Conclusions -Line 467: Review the conclusion about the lowest fillet yield, based on the comment made about this analysis for croaker. -Lines 480-481: It is not possible to conclude based on the acceptability of the products, since sensory analysis was not performed in this work. Reviewer #2: In this paper, the authors discussed the the elaboration of flours to generate a good product, of nutritional and microbiological quality, which can be added to other foods, with the purpose of enriching protein, minerals, fatty acids and providing an increase in the acceptability in food products, as well as reducing the possibility of environmental impact and adding value to production chain of these fish species. This paper contains new and enough interesting results after taking into account the following comments 1) The English should be improved 2) In the introduction section, the authors write line 76 "" With the need for a more conscious and environmentally correct use of by-products and waste from fish filleting, this fact makes food industries seek viable solutions for the recovery of by-products and waste, seeking new alternatives for their use in a more efficient way more efficient and healthier for consumers of fish products [.......]. The following references may be cited Wenya Tian, Design and Implementation of Web-Based Food Regulatory Information Resources Management Platform Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, Volume 05, No. 5-2S PP: 105S-111S (2011) N. Subramanian, K. Saravanan, Regime Classification of Geldart B Food Particles in Circulating Fluidized Bed Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences, Volume 13, No. 4 PP: 589-594 (2019) doi:10.18576/amis/130410 Najat O. A. Al-Salahi, Magda M. S. Saleh, Elham Y. Hashem, Utility of Spectrophotometry for Novel Quantitation of Sudan Orange G in some Commercial Food Products Journal of Pharmaceutical and Applied Chemistry, Vol. 5, No. 3 PP: 117-129 (2019) 3) More discussion on For preparation of sweet flour should be added 4) In the Statistical design section, the authors needs to add in a clear way some discussion on the used sample. 5) The authors write "The pH of fish provides conditions that stimulate microbial multiplication, as its meat has a pH close to neutrality, in addition to high water activity " This is not clear ?? 6) In the references list the same format should be used in each reference ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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. |
Revision 1 |
Quality of Oreochromis niloticus and Cynoscion virescens fillets and their by-products in flours make for inclusion in instant food products PONE-D-22-17293R1 Dear Dr. Gonçalves Oliveira, 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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. 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, Ashokkumar Veeramuthu Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. 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? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. 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 requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: This version can be accepted in its present form. Most of the comments have been implemented This version can be accepted in its present form. Most of the comments have been implemented ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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 ********** |
Formally Accepted |
PONE-D-22-17293R1 Quality of Oreochromis niloticus and Cynoscion virescens fillets and their by-products in flours make for inclusion in instant food products Dear Dr. Gonçalves Oliveira: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. Ashokkumar Veeramuthu Academic Editor PLOS ONE |
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 .