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.
Please check the reviewer's comment and revise it accordingly.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I'm satisfied with the changes the authors have made following my earlier suggestions.
I'm satisfied with the changes the authors have made following my earlier suggestions.
Small correction: line 102 , "more stable"
I'm satisfied with the changes the authors have made following my earlier suggestions.
Please check the reviewers' comments and revise them accordingly.
[# 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/ #]
The article is written in clear, unambiguous language. Sufficient background and context is provided. The structure of the article is professional.
The research question is well defined. Ethical standards are met (including the use of animals). The methods are described in sufficient detail.
It would be beneficial to provide all of the surveillance data as opposed to only the positive. The negatives are likely informative as well.
I do have a concern about the specificity of the developed assays described in the manuscript. How can the authors establish the specificity of these assays? It does not seem like the authors have described this.
The manuscript had generally good writing and presentation of background.
1. The Introduction should explain class I and class II NDVs. No mention of these two classes are made until Line 211 of the Results.
2. Line 195: To clarify, when you say “poultry”, which animals do you mean? Only chickens? Or chickens, ducks, and geese, but not pigeons? Perhaps cite Table 3 here. Also clarify what species are in poultry farms and markets.
3. Figure 2: What does the scale 0.05 mean?
4. Figure 2 caption: The sample labels appear to indicate species/location/___/year – I don’t know what the third item is. For example, “2126” in “Duck/Guizhou/2126/2018”.
5. Line 264: I’m not sure what you mean by “the surveillance of APMVs hitchhiked the surveillance for AIVs and NDVs”. Do you mean the APMV assay was done as a supplement on samples which were collected primarily for AIV and NDV detection?
6. Line 248: I suggest “dsRNA” instead of “RNA”.
8. Line 155: consider adding, “…using the hemoagglutination assay in order to test for the presence of virus” (or another appropriate explanation).
9. Perhaps mention in abstract that L gene is RNA polymerase
Some other small language corrections:
Line 37: I suggest saying "this RT-PCR assay" instead of "this assay".
Line 134: space in "assayin"
Line 203: "positives" -> "positive"
Line 241: I suggest "had been established" instead of "were established"
Line 251: “recognition” -> “knowledge”
6. Line 253: space in "NDVscould"
I thought the methods and question of the study were explained well.
1. Line 189: When you say “failed in sequencing”, do you mean that these positives were found to not actually be NDV? Or was there a technical failure during sequencing?
2. Line 193: “…our RT-PCR assays were significantly higher than…” What does this mean? Maybe the accuracy or sensitivity was significantly higher?
The conclusions seemed to match the data. The data files looked fine to me.
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.