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,
As per the recommendations of our expert reviewers, the manuscript is accepted in its current format.
This is an academic acceptance and still needs a few editorial tasks to be done. Therefore, I request you to be available for the next few days to avoid any delays.
All the best for your future submissions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jennifer Vonk, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Good work, well explain
Optimum
Satisfied
Applied work
Good.
Good.
Good.
Good.
Dear Authors,
As per the recommendations of our expert reviewers, the manuscript attracts few important points to be addressed. Therefore, I invite you to revise the manuscript. Please revise and resubmit asap.
All the best
a. language was good but few sentences were poorly written, need more attention
b.References with in the text and at the end both have several mistakes so it is advisable to go through authors guidelines properly. i also mentioned details it in pdf comment boxes
c. article theme was very good
d. tables are too much and data repeated in text
a. sample may be more why only 15 horses and author use different breeds so data may not be authantic
b. please explain what probability of error in statistics and how overcome consider health status, age, sex environment effect etc.
please explain what probability of error in statistics as you use 15 animals of different breeds sex and how overcome consider health status, age, sex environment effect etc.
1. Discussion is very elaborative please concise it point to point
2. go through text comment in pdf file
1. The language used is of high standard and yet easy to comprehend, clear and free of ambiguity. personally i liked authors' approach to make the terms and definitions easy to understand throughout the introductory part that was useful to construct the ideological plane towards the paper.
2. Exhaustive literature survey gave enough field background
3. Figures and tables are self-explanatory
4. The pivotal crux of 'does laterality exits in horses' have been demonstrated in a fine manner
1. The article appears to meat the originality criterion and is within the wide scope of the esteemed journal.
2. It certainly fills the identified knowledge gap and the research question is well defined
3. I appreciate authors for their adherence with high technical and ethical standards
4. The methodology is easy to adopt and replicate, in fact, as suggested by authors sample size can be widen to test it in future for physically sound and challenged horses.
My few suggestions/ queries are as follows:
A. Whether laterality is an acquired behaviour or innate? can it differ during life time of an individual. we need to compare the laterality in horses according to age to check such concept.
B. As exemplified by feeding behaviour, can any external intervention in micro-environment of animal make the animal to choose left over right? and how easy is such transit if at all it happens?
C. Young animals are still to have epiphyses ossified, so can this affect laterality and to what extent?
In nutshell, I can see many possibilities to further this work.
1. The work certainly has novelty element and as state earlier more work needs to be done in future for the benefit of science.
2. The data sound robust and statistically sound
Well concluded and research question leads supporting results and creates more curiosity
videographic data would certainly help, if possible and if within the scope of metadata of journal at large
Good
Good
Good
Authors should check for grammatical errors and English inconsistencies.
Arrange all the references as per the format of the journal.
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.