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.
Thank you for making all the minor editorial changes requested in the previous rounds of review. Your manuscript is now acceptable for publication and will make a great contribution to the Black Soldier Fly literature.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by John Measey, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Both reviewers are happy with the changes you have made to enhance the clarity of the manuscript. Reviewer 2 would like some further clarification made before the paper is accepted. I agree that these issues should be rectified inthe updated manuscript.
Thanks for your work on the manuscript
No comment
No comment
No comment
Authors have revised the manuscript based on the input from reviewers. Hence, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
I have gone through an English and grammar editing process, I've put tracked changes and highlighted some of the changes I've made here, more are in the attached track changed manuscript.
- [ ] English language check
‘Byproduct’ consistent spelling
Pg4 Line 17, removed ‘the’
Pg 4, Line 87, removed ‘the’
Pg4 Line 99, content
I've focussed on the requests of the editor.
- [x] Double check figures and tables
Figure 2, given the size of the standard error bars, I’m struggling to see how treatments b and c are meant to be significantly different from one another given their individual b and c letter designations. Could this be justified please?
The same query arises in Figure 3.
Likewise figure 5.
- [x] Open Raw Data
The first sheet tab, Larval duration_small appears unusual, are these lines in the excel sheet individual larvae?
There appears to be a graph and an orange highlights in the data placed randomly. (Row 385 and row 5069). What do these mean?
Larval Growth Small_scale data looks reasonable.
n/a
Both reviewers and I saw merit in your manuscript and are keen to see it progress. Further information is required in regard to the experimental design and methodology - if you have information on water-holding capacity and nutritional profile can you please add this information?
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff 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.
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Experimental design is not clearly explained and consequently must be improved.
Authors should add references to all procedures used in the study.
Authors should equation numbers to all equations.
Authors wrote ‘In the large-scale experiments, a plastic tray with dimensions of 60 cm (L) x 40 cm (W) x15 cm (H) was used’. 60 cm x 40 cm x 15 cm cannot be considered as large scale. Authors should replace the term large scale with a more appropriate term.
In conclusion, authors wrote that ‘Each dry substrate boasts distinct physical and chemical attributes, encompassing a different water-holding capacity, nutritional profile, presence of potentially toxic compounds, particle sizes, etc’. However, no data on water-holding capacity and nutritional profile were investigated in this study. Authors should make conclusions based on the data obtained in this study.
The meaning of asterisk symbol (*, **, ***, **** and *****) in Table 3 is not clear. Authors should explain the meaning of each symbol.
Authors should clearly explain the rationale of recommended quantity in Table 3.
Average and range values in Table 1 and Table 2 are redundant as readers can determine the average values from the provided range values.
Np additional comments
The paper addresses the use of various substrates to control the humidity and moisture environment in which the black soldier flies (BSF) are reared. The study is important and provides a useful guide to those wishing to establish BSF farms themselves.
I found this manuscript to be very professionally written in terms of english, references and layout. Very well done.
The experimental design is sound and demonstrates the iterative nature in which designs evolve.
The findings are sound with certain substrates proving to be much more effective than others as well as additional results were obtained on the useful or less useful side properties of the substrates, such as metal adsorption and prior cleaning of substrates may be required.
Q1. Table 1. Why are the SDs of the various dry substrates orders of magnitude larger than the SD of the control in the small scale trial 1 please?
Table 1, please explain Em % in the caption so reader doesn't have to go back to text. (moisture removal).
Conclusions, line 388. Pls remove etc. Pls list all items being referred to. Perhaps state this is not an exhaustive list.
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.