Key Success Factors for the Development of Innovative Antibiotic Replacement Products to Accelerate Growth in Broilers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- First the manuscript is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner and the cited references mostly recent publications (2019-2020-2021)
- Secondly the manuscript scientifically sound and the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis.
- Third the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section.
- The figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate; they properly show the presented data and data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript.
- The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the reviewer for the compliment, we have improved the manuscript according to your comments. Please see the attachment.
Best regard,
Kitti
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the reviewer for the suggestions. We have improved the manuscript according to your comments. Please see the attachment.
Best regard,
Kitti
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is written in an understandable way and shows a consistent argumentation.
The opening chapter provides a good thematic introduction. The objective of the research study is presented in a comprehensible manner. However, the state of research could have been better elaborated. In particular, it is not clear which research direction the article intends to link to thematically.
The second section explains the background of the mixed methods approach. Basically, I like the reduced form of the presentation. However, I would have liked more information about the collection of the data and its further processing. For example, what did the questionnaire for the quantitative analysis look like? On what basis were the questions formulated? Were all answers taken into account in the analysis?
Furthermore, the article does not sufficiently explain the confirmatory factor analysis. What exactly was the methodological procedure? Which items were used to form the factors? What theoretical hypotheses were used as the basis for the innovative product model? In addition, constructs such as "Perceived Ease of Use" are widely discussed in research. The authors should briefly state their references and justify on which theoretical considerations the model is built. Also, the quality measures of the factor analysis should be explained in more detail to prove the validity of the findings.
The discussion chapter is extensive and the summary achieves the necessary depth of content. In my opinion, however, a paragraph on limitations is missing. In addition, the concluding chapter is too short. The authors should put more emphasis on the added value of the results and also provide more detail on how further research can build on the results.
Considering formal aspects, I also noticed some minor errors that should be corrected before publication:
- Many citations in the text are missing a space before the square brackets.
- Reference No. 25 in the text is highlighted in bold.
- The signature of Table 2 is incorrectly formatted.
- Reference number 36 is colored in red.
- In addition, the article should still be linguistically revised in some places. Proofreading by a native speaker is recommended.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank the reviewer for the compliment and suggestions. We have improved the manuscript according to your comments. Please see the attachment.
Best regard,
Kitti
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
