Beneficial Effects of Nutraceuticals, Especially Polyphenols on Canine Health

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript submitted represents a vast amount of work. Currently it is very long I my overall recommendation is that it is re-written to focus only on dog-specific studies. For transparency sake I would also suggest, at the very least, that the search strategy to locate and retrieve the articles is supplied. However, the information in this review lends itself to a quantitative systematic review which would increase the robustness of the manuscript. A systematic review would also ensure for critical appraisal of the current evidence which is lacking in this narrative review is largely descriptive and lacks critical analysis. It would also be beneficial to tabulate much of the evidence presented to make the information more accessible to the reader by reducing the amount of reading required, improve consistency in the data presented and allow for easier identification of gaps in the research.

I am also concerned by the high iThenicate score with the report showing that better paraphrasing is required in places. I look forward to reading a much shorter, more focused revised manuscript.

More specific comments are in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I stronger recommend your manuscript is edited professionally for English before it is re-submitted. English is my first language and in places  I found the paper difficult, lacking a logically flow and being quite disjointed. The sentences are typically wordy and some are very long and need to be split. More care needs to be taken with sentence and paragraph structure to improve readibility. Typically each paragraph should only cover one key point and one idea related to the point per sentence within the paragraph. 

Author Response

Rev#1

The manuscript submitted represents a vast amount of work. Currently it is very long I my overall recommendation is that it is re-written to focus only on dog-specific studies. For transparency sake I would also suggest, at the very least, that the search strategy to locate and retrieve the articles is supplied. However, the information in this review lends itself to a quantitative systematic review which would increase the robustness of the manuscript. A systematic review would also ensure for critical appraisal of the current evidence which is lacking in this narrative review is largely descriptive and lacks critical analysis. It would also be beneficial to tabulate much of the evidence presented to make the information more accessible to the reader by reducing the amount of reading required, improve consistency in the data presented and allow for easier identification of gaps in the research.

I am also concerned by the high iThenicate score with the report showing that better paraphrasing is required in places. I look forward to reading a much shorter, more focused revised manuscript. More specific comments are in the attached PDF.

Comments on the Quality of English Language. I stronger recommend your manuscript is edited professionally for English before it is re-submitted. English is my first language and in places  I found the paper difficult, lacking a logically flow and being quite disjointed. The sentences are typically wordy and some are very long and need to be split. More care needs to be taken with sentence and paragraph structure to improve readibility. Typically each paragraph should only cover one key point and one idea related to the point per sentence within the paragraph. 

R: Thank you for your suggestions and the opportunity to revise the manuscript. Based on your comments and those of other Reviewers, we have refocused the manuscript exclusively on dogs, minimizing comments and examples on humans and significantly shortening its content; we have deleted/introduced tables and figures; we have reordered the sections; we have summarized the multiple examples in tables; we have rewritten many paragraphs, in addition to the Abstract and the Conclusions. The title has been modified and is now more focused; we have introduced the purpose of the work at the end of the Introduction section; we have also incorporated suggestions in each section, as well as future perspectives in the Conclusions section. New references have also been incorporated. The grammar has been extensively revised.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript entitled  “Beneficial Effects of Polyphenols on Canine Health” intends to “present a review of the most relevant phytogenics, their characteristics, sources and implications on canine health, with special emphasis on polyphenols”. This work is of a review nature. At least several hundred papers of a very similar nature have been published last years. Although the manuscript shows interesting information about the field, it is limited to summarizing reference-based known information. I felt that a review needed in the area should analyze the advantages and disadvantages of using phenolic compound. As per the title of manuscript, one expect that it has information about the properties of polyphenols and its meta analysis. But authors are not focussed. The authors stated that this is a work with a special focus on polyphenols. Polyphenols belong to a large group of phenolic compounds and the authors should focus on them. Or specify the purpose of the research (which is missing). And then the title of the article should be changed on   “Beneficial Effects of selected secondary metabolites on canine health”. The authors should focus on particular aspects of selected topic and should describe it in detail with tables, diagrams and flowcharts. Then they should give their inputs about the gathered information and discuss it so that it should be fruitful for readers.

Just for this reason, I believe that it should not be published in this form. However, the above statements do not exclude the excellent idea of the authors, which unfortunately has been pushed to the background here. In summary of this assessment, I can say that this publication can be transformed with little effort from a collection of duplicated information into a very interesting study by significantly narrowing down the subject and reversing the emphasis on the key parts of the work. After such a change, the work can be easily published in the journal Pets.

Author Response

Rev.#2

Manuscript entitled “Beneficial Effects of Polyphenols on Canine Health” intends to “present a review of the most relevant phytogenics, their characteristics, sources and implications on canine health, with special emphasis on polyphenols”. This work is of a review nature. At least several hundred papers of a very similar nature have been published last years. Although the manuscript shows interesting information about the field, it is limited to summarizing reference-based known information. I felt that a review needed in the area should analyze the advantages and disadvantages of using phenolic compound. As per the title of manuscript, one expect that it has information about the properties of polyphenols and its meta-analysis. But authors are not focused. The authors stated that this is a work with a special focus on polyphenols. Polyphenols belong to a large group of phenolic compounds and the authors should focus on them. Or specify the purpose of the research (which is missing). And then the title of the article should be changed on “Beneficial Effects of selected secondary metabolites on canine health”. The authors should focus on particular aspects of selected topic and should describe it in detail with tables, diagrams and flowcharts. Then they should give their inputs about the gathered information and discuss it so that it should be fruitful for readers.

Just for this reason, I believe that it should not be published in this form. However, the above statements do not exclude the excellent idea of the authors, which unfortunately has been pushed to the background here. In summary of this assessment, I can say that this publication can be transformed with little effort from a collection of duplicated information into a very interesting study by significantly narrowing down the subject and reversing the emphasis on the key parts of the work. After such a change, the work can be easily published in the journal Pets.

R: Thank you for your many suggestions and your willingness to accept the manuscript. Based on your comments and those of other Reviewers, we have refocused the manuscript exclusively on dogs, minimizing comments and examples on humans and significantly shortening its content; we have deleted/introduced tables and figures; we have reordered the sections; we have summarized the multiple examples in tables; we have rewritten many paragraphs, in addition to the Abstract and the Conclusions. The title has been modified and is now more focused; we have introduced the purpose of the work at the end of the Introduction section; we have also incorporated suggestions in each section, as well as future perspectives in the Conclusions section. New references have also been incorporated. The grammar has been extensively revised.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors.

Pet nutrition is a very important aspect of their health and well-being. Depending on the type of animal, it is necessary to choose the appropriate type of food. For dogs and cats, it is recommended to feed a balanced commercial feed that contains all the necessary nutrients in the right proportions. It is important to remember that some foods that are good for humans can be dangerous for pets. The nutrition of pets directly affects their health, therefore, the work aimed at developing the concept of balanced pet food is relevant. The topic touched upon in the article is relevant. The scientific content of the manuscript justifies its publication, but some additions and modifications will significantly improve the quality of the article.

Major comments:

1) The Abstract should be rewritten. Describe the existing problem and the methods of its solution. The purpose of the study should be indicated.

2) The Introduction should be shortened for a better understanding by readers of the problem under consideration.

3) In Introduction, the purpose of the study should be described.

4) L. 412, 455, 559, 657, 675, 724, 798, 907, the numbering of the paragraphs is not correct.

5) The review lacks the authors' critical view of the existing problems of pet nutrition.

6) Conclusion, the prospects for using the obtained results should be added.

Author Response

Rev.#3

Dear authors.

Pet nutrition is a very important aspect of their health and well-being. Depending on the type of animal, it is necessary to choose the appropriate type of food. For dogs and cats, it is recommended to feed a balanced commercial feed that contains all the necessary nutrients in the right proportions. It is important to remember that some foods that are good for humans can be dangerous for pets. The nutrition of pets directly affects their health, therefore, the work aimed at developing the concept of balanced pet food is relevant. The topic touched upon in the article is relevant. The scientific content of the manuscript justifies its publication, but some additions and modifications will significantly improve the quality of the article.

R: Thank you for your constructive response.

Major comments:

• The Abstractshould be rewritten. Describe the existing problem and the methods of its solution. The purpose of the study should be indicated.

R: The suggestion has been accepted.

• The Introductionshould be shortened for a better understanding by readers of the problem under consideration.

R: Thanks for the suggestion. Multiple changes have been introduced and the Introduction section shortened.

• In Introduction, the purpose (aim) of the study should be described.

R: The aim of the study has been incorporated.

• 412, 455, 559, 657, 675, 724, 798, 907, the numbering of the paragraphs is not correct.

R: Corrected.

• The review lacks the authors' critical view of the existing problems of pet nutrition.

R: Different aspects has been commented at the end of the sections, concluding the most significant points.

• Conclusion, the prospects for using the obtained results should be added.

R: Conclusions have been rewritten, pointing out the most relevant future perspectives.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript is much improved. I have provided feedback in the attached PDF. Much of the newly added content needs to be rewritten, or at the very least the English grammar corrected. I have taken liberty of suggesting how these sections could be rewritten (please see the comments in the PDF). Please use the comments and edits in the PDF to inform your next revision. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend that the manuscript be edited professionally for English before re-submission, especially any newly written content.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to revise and improve our MS. All suggestions in the text have been accepted and the tables improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors improved the manuscript according to the suggested  changes 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors.

My comments have been taken into account.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback.