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 Authors,
I am pleased to confirm that your paper has been accepted for publication in PeerJ.
Thank you for submitting your work to this journal.
With kind regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by James Reimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The Section Editor also noted that it would be good to add the scientific name of the animal in the Abstract and Introduction
The level of English is not adequate for the manuscript to be published. For this reason, I strongly suggest you sent their manuscript to some professional editing company to do the polishing once you have addressed the reviewer comments. In this way, the manuscript will be read more easily and will have a greater impact.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
The manuscript has a potential to provide useful data for aquaculture industry. The experiment was well designed and well conducted. I think it can be accepted for publish after some revision. My major concern is that the manuscript need a thorough proofread or polish before publishing. I have listed some comments (but not exhaustive) in the file. It seems that the size of the rearing tank might not right. Furthermore, I suggest the authors use two-way ANOVA (or ANCOVA, or MNCOVA if necessary) because there are two treatment factors, i.e. dissolved oxygen level and acclimation temperature. I also suggest the authors provide the results of such statistical analysis in table.
No comment.
no comment
no comment
Thank you for improving your manuscript. However, there are still some minor modifications needed before this paper could be accepted for publication:
1. The statistic coefficients (exact P-value and F) have to been added into the results section and abstract.
2. The sample size and statistical test should be included in the figure captions and in the table titles.
Best regards
The manuscript is well revised and can be recommended for publication.
The design is fine.
The manuscript is well revised and can be recommended for publication.
No more comments
The manuscript is generally OK, however, the authors must add statistic coefficients (exact P-value and F) to the results section and abstract.
Also, the authors must indicate sample size and statistical test in the figure captions and table titles.
The manuscript is generally OK, however, the authors must add statistic coefficients (exact P-value and F) to the results section and abstract.
Also, the authors must indicate sample size and statistical test in the figure captions and table titles.
The manuscript is generally OK, however, the authors must add statistic coefficients (exact P-value and F) to the results section and abstract.
Also, the authors must indicate sample size and statistical test in the figure captions and table titles.
The manuscript is generally OK, however, the authors must add statistic coefficients (exact P-value and F) to the results section and abstract.
Also, the authors must indicate sample size and statistical test in the figure captions and table titles.
The topic of the study presented in the manuscript is relevant. Although the toxicity of MPs has been demonstrated in several organisms, very little is still known about the impacts of their association with other pollutants. In addition, most studies focus on marine organisms, and freshwater animals are less studied. However, the manuscript presents serious concerns. Among them, the methodology lacks much information that is important and some procedures (e.g., statistical analysis, experimental design, and quantification of contaminants) appear to be flawed.
You can see many more comments from the reviewers related to the different parts of the manuscript. Therefore, you would need to make a thorough revision of the manuscript taking into account each and every one of the recommendations made by the reviewers. In case of not being able to carry them out, the work will have to be rejected.
Reviewer 3 has requested that you cite specific references. You may add them if you believe they are especially relevant. However, I do not expect you to include these citations, and if you do not include them, this will not influence my decision.
Best regards,
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# 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 copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
.
The study is well designed and have enough data for publication.
The study is well designed and have enough data for publication.
The abstract section should briefly introduce the research background and significance, clarify the research methods, introduce the main research results, and finally, give the corresponding conclusions.
No information about the feeding regime of fish during adaptation.
The number of samples used for biochemical testing is not clear. The number of samples given in all Tables are not listed.
The P-value for the effects of temperature, oxygen, and their interaction should be written in tables and figures. Also, the results and discussion sections should be updated in light of the obtained P-value.
Line 66-70: writing mistakes.
Line 77: what is the meaning of theoretical basis?
Line 89: how to decide the good health?
Line 93: source of commercial feed?
Line 98: what was the size of these tanks??
Line 97-101: graphical abstract is always appreciated.
Line 103: source and information about the heat controller needed ?
Line 105: meaning is not clear.
English style is not acceptable. There many unrelated sentences, strange phrases and grammatical errors in the text. The text needs complete rewriting.
Introduction fails to clearly present the necessity and hypothesis. The authors must talk about the importance of crucian carp, then importance of temperature and oxygen in fish health (stress, antioxidant, immune,...) and survival, then information about the temperature and oxygen preference of crucian carp, and finally a clear necessity and aims.
Figure captions and table titles are not informative. For example, sample size, data presentation (mean +/- SD/SE) and statistical tests must be expressed. Fig. 2 needs more works. The caption is not complete and there is no statistical indicators.
It is not acceptable.
How were the water parameters measured?
Fish feed manufacturer? Feeding rate? Were there any differences in feeding rate among the treatments (this greatly affects the measured parameters)?
How were the water temperature and oxygen ranges chosen?
Antibacterial assay is confusing. It is not clear that the authors measured antibacterial properties of blood serum, skin mucus, or both! Fig. 2 tell it is just blood serum antibacterial activity, but the method tells another thing.
Kits' names must be mentioned.
Which anticoagulant was used for hematological assays? Why RBC, MCV and MCHC were not reported?
The most important stress indicator in fish is blood cortisol that has a variety of effects on fish growth, immune and behaviors. Why the authors not measured it?!
Measurement of antioxidant enzymes alone present not a robust conclusion about the oxidative conditions of the fish. Measuring the levels of reduced glutathion, TBARS and protein carbonyl is necessary to make a clear conclusion.
Statistics need revisions. First, the authors must confirm ANOVA assumptions. Next, when using two-way ANOVA, the authors must clearly state the significance of temperatures, oxygen levels and interactions. The authors may check the following articles as examples of reporting such type of data:
Aquaculture, 528, 735537
Aquaculture nutrition, 25(2), 298-309
The authors must keep in mind to translate the statistical results in biological interpretation (in the discussion section).
I have attached a pdf file, partially showing the writing issues of the manuscript. They are just examples, but the whole text has the same problem. Due to the potential changes in the results after statistical revisions, this manuscript, and particularly the discussion section, must be reconsidered after revisions.
After carefully reading the manuscript "#72877", I noticed that the Influences of oxygen and temperature interaction on the antibacterial activity, antioxidant activity, serum biochemical indices, blood indices and growth performance of crucian carp. Undoubtedly, the theme of the manuscript is relevant, current and very opportune. Although the toxicity of MPs has been demonstrated in several organisms, little is known about the impacts of their association with other pollutants. Furthermore, the focus of many studies has been marine organisms, with freshwater animals being less studied. However, I have serious concerns about the study. The methodology lacks a lot of important information and some procedures (e.g.: statistical analysis, experimental design, quantification of pollutants) are clearly wrong. The comments/suggestions below may help the authors improve the study to perhaps be resubmitted.
L80-82: show the mean ± SD or SEM? Size animals (total length or standard length)? What is the approximate age of the animals? Origin animals? Were they obtained from laboratory matrices or commercially obtained? Were the waters used in the acclimation and experimental water dechlorinated? If so, how was this process carried out?
What was the sex of the animals? We know that the physiological response of animals to temperature and oxygen levels can be gender-specific. If a mixture of males and females was used, the proportion of each sex must be reported. L113: authors must provide a justification for choosing the exposure period. It is not recommended that this choice appear to have been random. How much is the chosen period environmentally relevant? What scenario or situation did the authors intend to simulate?
L115: Similarly, authors should justify the choice of tested concentrations (of oxygen). What are the criteria adopted for choosing these concentrations? How ecologically relevant are they? Such concentrations seem to me to be high in relation to those potentially identified in natural environments.
Were the physicochemical parameters of the waters evaluated before or after the renewal of the exposure waters?
L164: the item "statistical analysis" must be detailed. Have the ANOVA and T test assumptions been tested (e.g.: normality and homogeneity)? If yes, what tests were performed? About the post hoc used, it is important to emphasize that the "conservativeness" increases from Duncan's multiple-range test, the Newman-Keuls test, Tukey's HSD test, to the Scheffé test. However, power decreases. Generally, Tukey's HSD test is preferred over Duncan's multiple-range test.
Authors must provide a summary of the statistical analyzes performed in the text or figures. This means providing the F-value, degrees of freedom (DFn and DFd), exact p-value. The mere mention of "p < 0.05" is insufficient.
I could not reconcile the presentation of Methods and the Tables and Figures presenting the data and their analysis. It could be that the text does not describe it well but there could also be an error in the reporting. This needs to be checked and clearly presented. It will be easier to provide a critique on this section if the methods and statistical analysis are clarified. Again, this should be reviewed again by a referee
The discussion goes beyond the scope of the study. Most of the discussion section should be culled because the material discussed although accurate does not directly relate to the work that was done in this study. The Discussion ion ranges across a wide field and is probably too detailed. The reframing of the questions being addressed (see above) should be used to restructure and streamline the Discussion. The Discussion covers some really interesting points but it needs a clearer direction as to why they are of significance and interest to the main thrust of the paper. Since this is not elaborated (see above) their inclusion appears somewhat random and disorganised. Get that main thrust clear and relate them to that
The abstract needs to be better structured. One or two sentences providing a basic introduction to the field, comprehensive to a scientist in any discipline. Two to three sentences of more detailed background, comprehensible to scientists in related disciplines. One sentence clearly stating the general problem being addressed by this particular study. One sentence summarizing the main result (with the words here we show or their equivalent). Two or three sentences explaining what the main result reveals in direct comparison to what was thought to be the case previously, or how the main result adds to previous knowledge. One or two sentences to put the results into a more general context. See Nature 435, 114-118 (5 May 2005) (https://www.nature.com/documents/nature-summary-paragraph.pdf)
Keywords are a tool to help indexers and search engines find relevant papers. If database search engines can find your journal manuscript, readers will be able to find it too. This will increase the number of people reading your manuscript, and likely lead to more citations. I recommend that the keywords should not overlap with the title. In fact, sometimes, using relevant descriptive phrases from the title can help your paper's visibility in article searches due to the algorithm used by many search engines. However, make sure you use other keywords as well as this will include a variety and make your work more easily retrievable.
L40-41: cite references after "(…) exotic species such as carp and goldfish) (references???)"
L72: I recommend that the authors cite and comment on other previous studies that evaluated the combined effect of MPs. There are excellent studies that should be mentioned in the introduction (https://doi.org/10.1111/are.12203 , https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11160-010-9179-1 , https://doi.org/10.1080/10236244.2015.1108057 , https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13233
). These studies can help authors to better justify the study.
L71-73: what are the inconsistencies identified by the authors? It is important to comment on them as this can be helpful in convincing readers of the relevance of carrying out the study.
The choice of the studied animal model, as well as temperatures and oxygens level is evident and convincing. However, why did the authors choose properties, antioxidant capacity, serum biochemistry, blood parameters and growth parameters ? This needs to be cleared up. Furthermore, at the end of the introduction, the authors must present the initial hypotheses of the study.
Concluding statement would be a good idea. This could relate to the original hypotheses, what the tests show and what the implications are.
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.