Antiviral Efficacy of Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma against Hepatitis A Virus in Fresh Oyster Using PMA/RT-qPCR

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "Antiviral Efficacy of Dielectric Barrier Discharge Plasma against Hepatitis A Virus in Phosphate-Buffered Saline Suspension and Fresh Oyster Using PMA/RT-qPCR" describing use of dielectric barrier discharge plasma (DBDP) as a tool for viral sterilization is an innovative approach for food safety and sanitization for various sea foods preferred to be eaten raw; and its beautiful confirmation with quantitative real time PCR. There are minute changes in the texture (might be due to other factors as suggested by authors) can be neglected. The reference are also adequate and well cited. The use of PMA (Biotium, Hayward, CA, USA) for identification of virulent viruses was also appreciable. 

The quality of graphs can be improved by adding gel image with graphs. One comparative photograph for different DBDP treatments can improve the impact of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We didn't perform gel image with DBD plasma.  We have added control images of DBD plasma treatment and compared with other treated groups. Next time, We will also add a graph.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Plagiarism is professional misconduct and is highly unethical in scientific publications. In this article, 34% is detected that is above international standards (IS) so it should be according to IS. 

However, I consider that  the research is practical and the manuscript should be reconsidered for publication after removing plagiarism.

Author Response

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We lowered the plagiarism rate as much as possible while utilizing the contents of this study.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author,

Thanks for your good work. Suggestions and comments are mentioned in the attached file.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1) Please explain shortly the purpose of the research with research problem.

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We changed at Line 21-24.

2) Try to use different keywords then title.

Response: Thank you for your kind advice

We changed keywords at Line 35.

3) What is the difference between DBDP and Cold Plasma Technology? Please explain in introduction.

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

There are many types of cold plasma technology. One of them is DBDP. So it's the same thing, not the other thing.

4) Please add more information about oysters used like size. Color and weight, and the time, month? year? Were they fresh? Please mention it.

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We changed at Line 94-96.

5) Any reference about this method

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We put at Line 160-161.

6) Different letters indicate

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We changed at Line 196.

7) You need to sort order of Figures and their explanations by number. Fig 1, Fig 2 and Fig 3.

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We changed all Figure à Fig 1, Fig 2 and Fig 3.

8) Different letters indicate

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We put at Line 218.

9) Please delete this sentence as you present it in Table 2.

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We wrote it down on the 225-227 Line.

10) ns: non-significant.

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We wrote it down on the 229-230 Line.

11) Delete, just say which treatment had significant difference then control. Which treatments had the highest and lowest value.

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We deleted it down on the 233-235 Line.

12) These highlighted paragraphs should be shorter and then move to introduction. They are perfect for introduction, not discussion section. Introduction is short and weak.

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We put at introduction part Line 41-42, 47-50, 59-68.

13) Please do not mention again main results in conclusion. Just explain about the practical application of your work for food industry.

Response; Thank you for your kind advice.

We deleted result part and explained about the application of work for food industry Line 319-328.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have not reduced the plagiarism and is still very high. The plagiarized material cannot be published, therefore I reject this manuscript due to professional misconduct.   

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

The authors have not reduced the plagiarism and is still very high. The plagiarized material cannot be published, therefore I reject this manuscript due to professional misconduct.   

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

It seems that the material and method have a high table width. I lowered it as low as possible.

All authors heartfully appreciate all reviewers

for this manuscript!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author,

Many thanks for the revised manuscript. Now it is much better. Some minor changes mentioned in the attached file.

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

1) Try to provide a shorter title.

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We reduced the title as much as possible in relation to the content of the paper.

2) By Choi et al [30] method.

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We put in Line 148.

3) Please use recent papers 2021-2023.

Response: Thank you for your kind advice.

We changed [17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, 28] references to the latest version.

 

All authors heartfully appreciate all reviewers

for this manuscript!

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx