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,
It is my pleasure to inform you that as per the recommendation of our expert reviewers, the manuscript "The first Brazilian bovine breed: structure and genetic diversity of the Curraleiro Pé-duro " - has been Accepted for publication in PeerJ.
This is an editorial acceptance and you will be intimated for the list of further tasks before publication. So, I request you to be available for a few days to make the necessary things asap.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Regards and good luck with your future submissions.
Dear Authors,
The reviewers have appreciated the efforts made to improve the quality of this manuscript. However, a very few corrections are still needed. Please pay attention to those points as asked by our reviewer and resubmit the manuscript asap.
Best of luck.
Basic reporting of the article is adequate. Language has been improved by the authors. My previous suggestions about overall drafting has been incorporated.
Experimental design is adequate and suggestions are incorporated.
Findings are interesting as well as now nicely presented. After review corrections the manuscripts is presentable and better understandable.
It's good to note that authors have worked well on revision of the manuscript. It has been improved, the overall paper now is readable and interesting.
The Language has been improved and is clear to understand.
Minor Corrections required as follows:
- Line 137: remove comma (,) after 'was used'
- Line 182: herd instead of 'herds'
- Line 258: subpopulations (farms) A, B, and C, similarities as well as some differences are expected.
No comment.
No comment.
Dear Authors,
The reviewing panel of our journal appreciated the research planning and the execution of the study. But a few points/comments to be addressed before publication in the journal. However, authors may not be agreed with all points and those can be justified. Please make corrections as suggested and resubmit asap.
All the best
[# 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) #]
Basic reporting of the paper is adequate, however, I have marked some places where language needs corrections. There are places where "non academic" words are used, plus there are typing mistakes that I have marked in the pdf itself. Authors should check each line very thoroughly before submission.
Adequate raw data has been shared by the authors, which is appreciable.
It is recommended to include all corrections that are marked in the pdf file.
Experimental design is good. Use of some rear micro-satellites for diversity analysis for a rear / native breed, with an exhaustive material method and result. However, there are some gaps that I have marked, authors should necessarily check them. Secondly, there are some interesting findings that are not discussed very well. When we deal with markers it is better first analyze them on overall population, that authors have done but it is hard to find in results, pls make it more readable & understandable.
Some corrections I have suggested for Table 5.
Pls make language more clear.
Findings of this paper are appropriate and they do give an insight of the within breed diversity. I have highlighted some of the sentences. pls rewrite them.
Conclusion is adequate.
Authors should check first check the language of reporting. It is very important as it can dampen down good findings too.
Check result parts as highlighted.
Design of experiment is ok, but at some places it is getting too shaky. Authors did provided complete analytical background, however, it is recommended to check the language as well as reporting style.
As a recommendation, if some of the tables can be merged then it will be better.
Structure plot is good to note.
Language quality is poor. Adequate background and context have been provided to justify the research. Adequate number of self explanatory table and figures have been provided to present the research results which relevant to hypothesis and context of research. Minor corrections are required in some tables as pointed out in attached file.
Manuscript embodies original research falling within scope of journal. Recent and standard methods and techniques properly described, have been used in the investigation which has stated clear aim about exploring the genetic diversity of a bovine breed and its significance.
Research results are valuable addition to literature in the field of Bovine genetic resources and their genetic diversity which can be harnessed for enhancing food productivity of animal origin. Sufficient and statistically sound data has been provided. Conclusions are related to research conducted in this experiment,
Language quality is poor and the manuscript contains several grammatical errors and repetitions. Very long and grammatically incorrect sentences at some places make it difficult to understand clearly the message which authors want to communicate.
1. The literature and references used support the background of the research work.
2. Language needs to be corrected at many places. Some sentences need to be reconstructed as the meaning is not clear.
Line nos. 126-242: Alignment of the text should be justified
Table 1 presents only 9 references. Legends show 10 reference.
Line 172: (x=0.016) type the characters instead of pasting the image
Line 229: Reconstruct. the context is not clear.
The work is well planned. Population size included in the study seems to be sufficient. The methods and tools used for in silico analysis are reliable for interpretation of the data.
- Full forms of certain abbreviations need to be added. eg. FIT, FIS, etc. along with their relevance to the study.
- Mention the protocol for DNA extraction, PCR in brief.
- Mention the procedure for further computational analysis in brief.
The data provided supports the results and conclusions drawn.
The study seems to be well planned. The choice of exploring the genetics of indigenous breeds is highly appreciated. Such studies will help in global recognition of the indigenous breeds of cattle and prepare strategies for upgradation of the breeds if required.
Further genetic studies with more population size is encouraged.
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.