All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Authors revised it considering all comments and suggestions from reviewers, and the revised version reads much better.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript subject is quite relevant to the journal and of wider scientific interest. However it needs to be corrected, keeping in mind reviewer's comments. Specifically, language needs some help, overall structure should be properly rearranged, need to add some missing (important) information, and more. Please read carefully reviewer's comments (one reviewer also attached additional comments as an annotated attachment), and incorporate those changes in the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The Manuscript 48138v1 is a review on DHA content in milk and biohydrogenation pathway in rumen. The manuscript is a review but it is difficult to understand exactly what is the objective of the review? It is difficult to find a reflection or input from the authors in each of their results and discussion paragraphs.
The review lack of structure and it is difficult to understand its rationale. For example, suddenly Fat-1 gene appears in the end of the document, but this is not explained in the introduction? It just seems that authors just enumerated results from different documents but they do not discussed them with profound criticism. The manuscript should be revised for its English style.
Line 72 should say Methods or Methodology
Lines 73-79 provide range of dates or months you used for your search, provide data bases used i.e., scopus, web of knowledge, google scholar?
What do you mean by qualitative and quantitative articles?
Line 72 should say Methods or Methodology
Lines 73-79 provide range of dates or months you used for your search, provide data bases used i.e., scopus, web of knowledge, google scholar?
What do you mean by qualitative and quantitative articles?
The Manuscript 48138v1 is a review on DHA content in milk and biohydrogenation pathway in rumen. The manuscript is a review but it is difficult to understand exactly what is the objective of the review? It is difficult to find a reflection or input from the authors in each of their results and discussion paragraphs.
The review lack of structure and it is difficult to understand its rationale. For example, suddenly Fat-1 gene appears in the end of the document, but this is not explained in the introduction? It just seems that authors just enumerated results from different documents but they do not discussed them with profound criticism. The manuscript should be revised for its English style.
Specifics:
Abstract
Lines 27-29 please re write and improve English structure,
Introduction
Line 49, delete, why will you have subtitles in the introduction?
Lines 42-48 please update references; there is a continuous debate on the pros and cons from consuming milk fatty acids
Line 72 should say Methods or Methodology
Lines 73-79 provide range of dates or months you used for your search, provide data bases used i.e., scopus, web of knowledge, google scholar?
What do you mean by qualitative and quantitative articles?
Tables 1 and 2. What is milk fatty acid (%), is it milk fat content? Please change accordingly
Check the use of decimals in your tables, also if control diets do not have fish oil or algae then use a “–“ which means the same and use it in all places where you do not have data. For decimals use 3 digits, for example 345, 3.45, 0.34
The review provides great insights about DHA metabolism and synthesis in animal organism. In addition, provides information about the use of DHA-rich products in dairy cows nutrition and its excretion in milk, and other tools to increase DHA amount in animal products. This subject is important nowadays and has been greatly studied, since human health can be improved by such findings. Therefore, I support the further publication of this review, after revision is carefully done. Hence, I recommend major revision.
Language is clear, with minimal errors that can be easily corrected. The introduction part is well-written, concise and clear.
Review is supported by adequate references, although some of them should be revised.
Some parts must be improved, as I stated specifically in the pdf attached.
Information provided in the tables should be revised and clarified by explaining how calculations were done. Please, revise the concepts of "milk fat content" and "milk fatty acid content".
Review brings important information, although some should be revised as stated.
Sources are adequately cited, with exception of some that I recommended to be revised.
Review is organized logically in adequate subsections and paragraphs.
One of the main problems is the information shown in the tables 1 and 2, where DHA content in milk is calculated based on the papers cited. It appears to be a confusion with "milk fat content" and "milk fatty acid content". Some inferences are made based on this results, so they must be revised before publication. I believe the calculus can not be done on this way to be published. However, if the author provides a feasible explanation and show in details below the table how the calculation was done, this data may be approved.
Review brings relevant information and after major revision. Please, read comments in the pdf attached.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.