Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on April 1st, 2014 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on April 18th, 2014.
  • The first revision was submitted on May 27th, 2014 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on May 28th, 2014.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Thanks for considering and making the necessary revision.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

I am pleased to report that both reviewers have recommended acceptance of your paper. Just for best accuracy and readability, please go through the manuscript once more and revise it accordingly where it is necessary.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

This manuscript appears technically sound. It is logically organised, and generally reads very well.

Experimental design

Overall, this manuscript presents good quality work. The investigative approach is logical and well executed.

Validity of the findings

This work appears to be based on a solid knowledge of the subject.

Comments for the author

Overall very good work. However, as a potential reader of this publication my first impression would be that this manuscript is excessively lengthy and somewhat overloaded with data sets. I would suggest to shorten the manuscript, and present the data sets, in more concise manner. For instance, the information presented in Tables 1 &2 can be fitted in a single table, as well the data presented in Tables 4, 5, and 6 can be presented in a single Table.

You have analysed (discussed) your findings in the context of the data of others in text, at length, but as a reader of your publication I would like to see some summary figure or table presenting your current numbers, and comparing the studied variables on historical time scale from the perspective of natural history of changes of these variables at different stages of genetic broiler improvement over the last 50 years or so. Undoubtedly, all readers of your work would appreciate this.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

no comments

Experimental design

the experimental design is sound

Validity of the findings

the findings are valid

Comments for the author

This is a nicely prepared and fully referenced manuscript. A pleasure to read. I believe the DISCUSSION provides a fair overview and summary of the data.

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.