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 the manuscript is accepted for publication in PeerJ. Please keep yourself available for various publication tasks to avoid any delays. I wish you good luck with your future submissions.
Regards
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Clear and unambiguous up to mark
Optimal and sufficient
Original and impact-full
Some minor corrections are suggested in the attached file.
Dear Authors,
Our reviewers really appreciated the efforts made by you but still feel a few points need to be addressed. Therefore, I invite you to submit a revision of the manuscript (as indicated in the attached annotated file). Please revise and resubmit asap. All the best.
Clearly written
Original and well written
Meaning full and encouraging.
Do necessary correction as suggested in the attached file.
No Comment
No comment
No Comment
Dear Dr. Mata,
The manuscript was checked by our expert reviewers and they really appreciated the research. However, our reviewers feel that there are a few points to be addressed (marked in annotated files submitted by reviewers) to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Therefore, as an Academic Editor for your article, I wish you to invite Minor Revisions.
[# 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. #]
manuscript is clear and unambiguous.
Introduction & background are up to mark.
Literature well referenced & relevant.
Some points clarity is required and also pointed in the text pdf.
No comment
No comment
Kindly see attached pdf file for detail comeents.
The language used is easy to understand.
Content of the study is well supported by the literature and references provided.
Very few grammatical mistakes might be required as per the file attached.
Line 24: Abbreviation "GISID" should be included with the full form.
Line 26: delete for the last
The sample size required for the experimental design seems to be enough. But the sample nos. of mongrels is quite less as compared to that of cross breeds and pure breeds.
Appropriate statistical tools have been selected and employed to analyze the huge dataset.
Results generated by the Statistical tools used for the analysis of data support the hypothesis of the study.
Conclusions are stated in a simplified manner without any ambiguity.
Clearly presented with easy understand.
Sample size is adequate for statistical design.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to the original research question, and limited to support.
All desired corrections are mentioned in the attached file.
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.