Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on August 14th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 9th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on September 30th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 1st, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

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

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

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

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

See below

Experimental design

Material and methods
Line 133: the author should report the name of the buffer used to mix the rumen fluid

Validity of the findings

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

Comments for the author

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.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No comments

Experimental design

No comments

Validity of the findings

No comments

Comments for the author

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.