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.
Thanks for considering and making the necessary revision.
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.
This manuscript appears technically sound. It is logically organised, and generally reads very well.
Overall, this manuscript presents good quality work. The investigative approach is logical and well executed.
This work appears to be based on a solid knowledge of the subject.
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.
no comments
the experimental design is sound
the findings are valid
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.