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.
Thank you very much for addressing the remaining concerns. In my view, the revised version of your manuscript is acceptable now.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Pedro Silva, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
A few minor changes are needed, as the current version does not specifically detail in what parameters it differs from Wood et al 2020. This should be mentioned in the Methods section and highlighted in the Conclusions.
The sentence "Previous work by Wood et al (2020) was not included in this study and serum samples collected in the current study are new samples." in the introduction seems to be out of place, and I think it would probably work better if it were moved to the Methods section.
Please address the concerns of the reviewers and amend your manuscript accordingly.
This paper reports on a method comparison for fatty acid measurement in African elephants. The language is clear and professional, the structure is fine, the raw data is supplied. The results are relevant. In my view, one citation of the 2003 elephant paper of ours is not adequate (as we do not compare with our own "free-range" data in there, and as its results are included in the 2007 review that is also cited), whereas another FA comparison paper of ours (from 2008 on black rhino) would be.
Literature supporting the interpretation that two fatty acids are especially susceptible to elution or inclusion of cells in the sample should be given, or at least a logic why these and not others. Without such a logic / literature, I recommend not to give these hypothetical explanations.
I think there are only minor revisions necessary for the language and flow of narrative, incl. a deletion in the discussion to avoid unnecessary content duplication, and a change in the footnote format for the results table.
Most importantly, the authors must mention that they reported on fatty acid levels in these animals (and from these samples?) already in their 2020 Zoo Biol paper. This is not a problem to the present study, as the method comparison was not part of that 2020 manuscript. However, NOT mentioning this in the Introduction equals concealment; I urge the authors to mention this upfront, incl. a statement of to which results of the 2020 paper (i.e., to which season) the current samples correspond, or, if the present study used samples from the same animals that were not used in the 2020 manuscript, then state that. As a note on the side, this is a habit I am seeing more and more in papers I review and I am not sure whether this is a new writing style - not mentioning that one has done very similar work, or work on the same samples or the same experiment, in the Introduction.
sincerely marcus clauss
In my view, the study is well within the aims and scope. The question is well defined and meaningful, and the technical standards appear up-to-date to me. I think that the description of statistics requires some modification, but not a data re-analysis. mc
The findings are valid. The underlying data are provided and correspond, in random checks, to the data in the results table. Conclusions are well stated. mc
I made comments in the provided word documents. If will try to attach them. If that is not possible, I will combine them into one pdf and attache that. sincerely m clauss
The researchers explored the usefulness of a dry bloodspot method to determine the serum fatty acid profile of (African savanna) elephant serum. This was compared with other whole blood sampling methods. The application of DBS lies in post sampling storage and handling prior to analysis.
The document was well written and no linguistic errors were detected.
The experimental design is acceptable. Methods used were state of the art. The work was carried out with care. The data was presented in an accepted and interpretable manner.
The data was presented in an accepted and interpretable manner. Specific care was taken not to over-interpret the statistical data.
Little information is available on the biochemistry of elephants. New information is presented that contributes to elephant biology.
The document may be published as is.
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.