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 quickly revising your manuscript and your response to reviewer suggestions. I have evaluated it and I am happy to accept your manuscript for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Konstantinos Kormas, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
We will be happy to accept your paper for publication once a few minor critiques have been addressed. Please pay particular attention to the suggestions to modify wording in a few places in the manuscript. You should also consider mentioning the reference provided by reviewer 2 and including it in your citations. Shortening the manuscript is less important, but could be considered to minimize redundancy and improve clarity.
The authors discussed a topic of postmortem interval in forensic science and they included all results relevant to their hypothesis, however, there are some comments on certain parts of the manuscript that need to be modified.
1.Abstract: It is suggested to include the results and evaluation indexes of the PMI inference model. This addition will help readers quickly grasp the relevant information. Moreover, the abstract needs to be further condensed to briefly describe the main content and highlights of the article.
2. While the article is well-written, it is lengthy. The authors should consider streamlining the content, such as by deleting less relevant introductory parts.
Based on the analysis of microbial data from mouse cadavers and grave soil across different seasons, this paper introduces a novel concept, the " Rupture Time". This point represents the extent of exchange between the cadaver and the external environment, a finding that, while innovative, requires further detailed experimentation. The study aligns well with the journal's scope and presents new data that merit publication.
1. Lines 108-111: Since the results show microbial data from graveyard soil, it is recommended to modify the wording in this section to reflect this accurately.
2. Line 391: The sentence "The primary objective of this study is to utilize microbiota data associated with mouse cadavers to establish a PMI estimation model using the Random Forest algorithm" needs revision. Much of the paper emphasizes the " Rupture Time." Given the significance of this concept, the authors should revise this and related sections.
3. The authors suggest using the cemetery microbiota dataset for winter (low temperatures) and gut microbiota data for summer (high temperatures). However, this conclusion is based on a single study and should not be presented as an absolute recommendation. The authors are advised to revise this section to reflect the study's specific context.
This manuscript presents the results from a decomposition study to investigate the relationships between decomposition, season, microbial communities, chemistry, cadaver site, and time. This type of study is currently of great importance, as we expand our understanding of regional and seasonal effects on the decomposition of carcasses. This study is timely and I am confident that it will be of great interest to the relevant scientific communities.
This manuscript is generally well-written, effectively structured, and enjoyable to read. It does suffer from the repetitive use of some phrases, such as “on the other hand”, but this issue is minor and can be addressed easily.
This manuscript effectively cites the relevant recent literature. I recommend that the authors find a way to assimilate Burcham et al. (2024) Nature Microbiol https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-023-01580-y into their discussion because it is a very recent study with many parallels to the current study.
Tables and figures are presented effectively, as is their distribution between main manuscript and supplementary material.
The experiment is well-designed and I commend the authors for including a seasonal aspect to the research. Seasonality is a significant current issue in carcass decomposition studies.
The submitted materials show that all research was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines and used a clear QA/QC protocol for sample sequencing eligibility (Lines 215 – 217).
The conclusions of this research are well stated and the authors effectively compare them to other relevant research. The conclusions related to the relationship between rupture and microbial relative abundance, for example, are logical and supported by an objective analysis of the data.
The authors also place their work in appropriate context – this work is contributing to the foundational knowledge necessary to advance the use of microbiota for PMI estimation. This is an important point and it is presented very clearly in the manuscript.
It appears that all data have been provided with the submission and will be accessible to readers if the manuscript is published.
The manuscript contains a few minor typographical issues that I noticed:
Line 165: Change 2.3 Data Analyze to 2.3 Data Analysis
Line 368: The citation is presented as [N2], so please check this.
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.