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 Author,
After reviewing your submissions and corrections, I consider your manuscript to be accepted for publication in accordance with PeerJ's procedures.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Vladimir Uversky, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Dr. Yildirim,
Thanks for sending us your manuscript. I have chosen to accept it with minor revisions. Please consider making the necessary adjustments based on the 1 and 2 reviewers' suggestions and corrections.
Sincerely,
The manuscript is objective, well written and in accordance with the basic reporting standards.
The research is original, the research question is well defined and relevant.
Methods are described with sufficient detail and information to replicate.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question and limited to supporting results.
It was very important that authors showed the study limitations in the last paragraph of discussion.
Line 140 – Authors must have meant “- 80 °C”.
Line 234 – I suggest to substitute “depending in body size” by “depending on body size”.
I recommend that the abbreviations are presented unabbreviated the first time they appear. It should be considered a list of abbreviations.
In the submitted manuscript, the authors examined the oxytetracycline effect based on the body size of trout, so the topic is worth investigating. However, the selection of plasma by the authors is appropriate for the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics of oxytetracycline. The authors used different body sizes of fish, which is crucial in developing a proper drug regime.
The experiment reported in this paper was clearly described, While it is an interesting topic in the Aquaculture field, I suggest some corrections and modifications that would improve the manuscript before accepting its publication.
It would be nice to justify or explain the toxicity range of OTC in the line number 91. Since it is not clear author used a USFDA dose or a new dose selected for the dose regime.
Line-122 to 123 exposed to?
Additionally, six different fish were used at each sampling time to minimize the stress and pain the fish would be exposed to.
Line – 136
How is antibiotic dose determined for trout? Is any previous toxicity test conducted?
Authors mentioned MIC in paragraphs 257 to 271, it may differ from normal feed premix to direct gavage and immersion method. Line number 279 mentioned that medicated feed is preferred. Fish in the current work was mainly focused on plasma and drug optimisation. Authors can mention that the medicated feed regime may vary due to the leaching effect of OTC in water and during disease fish may not feed or be sluggish in behaviour.
Authors can add a sentence as per Selvin 2010 in line number 279 “However, medicated feed leach in water (50 %) and feed intake loss (25 %) during the diseased condition of fish”
fish”
In conclusion
Line 301
Authors can also mention edible parts of fish such as “different body size and residue before human consumption”.
There are some references missing
Line- 61
Line- 79.
No comment
No comment
No comment
See suggested edits in the attached PDF
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.