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.
Dear Dr. Seo,
I'm pleased to inform you that your paper in its revised form is now suitable for publication on PeerJ.
Best regards,
Maria Rosaria Corbo
Dear Dr Seo,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PeerJ. Two expert reviewers have examined it and after careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but is not suitable for publication as it currently stands.
We invite you to submit a revised version that addresses the points raised.
Yours sincerely,
Maria Rosaria Corbo
See below
Material and methods
Line 133: the author should report the name of the buffer used to mix the rumen fluid
Introduction:
The author should revise the references and delete the oldest.
Line 77: the author should add “total mixed rations” besides its abbreviation in this line.
Results:
Line 196-200; table 2: the author should rewrite this passage to make it easier to match with the table.
Line 198 – 199- 206- 211-215: The author should clarify the unit of measure
Line 209: the use of the word trend is not justified; please, change the sentence (e.g: there was a decrement…) in order to avoid misunderstanding.
Line 212: the author should write “diet” instead of “treatments”
Discussion:
In my opinion, the discussion need to be revised and improved in the light of the table modifications written below and rewrite with more criticism.
Line 272: the author should delete the word “trend”
Table:
Table 1 and 2: the author should report the p value of the treatments
Table 3: the author should report the standard error of the mean
The major point of criticism was the discussion section. In my opinion, the discussion need to be deeply revised and improved.
I would recommend major revision of the paper before it can be considered for publication.
No comments
No comments
No comments
The effects of such feed supplements require further studies focused on the effects in terms of the nutritional and commercial quality of various food derivatives including meat and milk based products.
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.