arg_1
stringlengths 4
5.08k
| round_1
float64 2
8
⌀ | ann_1
float64 1
2
⌀ | arg_2
stringlengths 8
2.19k
| round_2
float64 1
7
⌀ | ann_2
float64 1
2
⌀ | annotation_name
stringclasses 131
values | is_attacks
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reviewing the famous Marlbro ads or thinking about the attention David Beckham's appearance in ads for Adidas receives can be understood to represent viewer's interpretation and unconscious assignment of famous archetypes.
| null | null |
I think there are some ways in which you may tighten up the description of the experimental design.The comparisons between Jung and Aaker are always interesting - although the small sample size may be troubling to some. Reviewing the famous Marlbro ads or thinking about the attention David Beckham's appearance in ads for Adidas receives can be understood to represent viewer's interpretation and unconscious assignment of famous archetypes. It is interesting and the work of Aaker may also be interpreted to represent images of Freedom, Social, Order and Ego. There clearly is a psychological component to the effectiveness an ad may have - although in some cases the appeal of the media selected and the surprising creative are major variables in terms of attention and engagement.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci6020005_perova
| 0 |
(h) Factor analysis: Have you reported principal components, or a rotated solution?
| null | null |
I think there are some ways in which you may tighten up the description of the experimental design.The comparisons between Jung and Aaker are always interesting - although the small sample size may be troubling to some. Reviewing the famous Marlbro ads or thinking about the attention David Beckham's appearance in ads for Adidas receives can be understood to represent viewer's interpretation and unconscious assignment of famous archetypes. It is interesting and the work of Aaker may also be interpreted to represent images of Freedom, Social, Order and Ego. There clearly is a psychological component to the effectiveness an ad may have - although in some cases the appeal of the media selected and the surprising creative are major variables in terms of attention and engagement.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci6020005_perova
| 0 |
The reviewer is completely right in adressing this point.
| null | null |
In the introduction, (Line 76 79), you present the objectives, but those are not clear, I respectfully suggest focusing on your hypothesis 2.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The paper is clearly written, with nice figures and with a discussion supported by the results obtained.
| null | null |
Line 78: You wrote, “designed to meet the basic behavioral needs of the sow at farrowing”, but this is not tested on the paper.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The paper is clearly written, with nice figures and with a discussion supported by the results obtained.
| null | null |
Lines 80 – 83 moves to discussion section 4.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The system we have used is to refer to the table with statistical values when reporting significant differences for the results presented in figures and tables, but for those that are presented in the text only, we also have P- and F-values in brackets.
| null | null |
Figure 1 is missing 5.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The reviewer is completely right in adressing this point.
| null | null |
Figure 2 needs more description, maybe include which wall… Please describe units of the dimensions 6.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
There are only minor comments with very specific issues:
| null | null |
Figure 4. Please indicate which is “sowconf” and which is “trad”. In the left graph the units are in m2, but in right side it does not have unit, seems ar?
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The paper deals with an interesting topic and totally up to date to provide farmers with solutions for free farrowing (which in Europe may become mandatory under The End of the Cage Age initiative).
| null | null |
Line 206: I don’t understand why you use just 10 o 12 sows, 50% primi and multiparous, but in line 225 mentioned that “there were no secure information about sow parity” please be consistent.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The reviewer is completely right in adressing this point.
| null | null |
Please include P values when report significant differences.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The paper is clearly written, with nice figures and with a discussion supported by the results obtained.
| null | null |
Figure 1 does not appear in the pdf that this reviewer could download. Only the Figure Caption appears.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The following changes could improve the quality of the paper.
| null | null |
It is not totally clear to the reviewer how stillborn piglets were evaluated as compared to “piglets with no milk in stomach”.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
There are only minor comments with very specific issues:
| null | null |
Line 224-225, it states that that no information/security on the productivity data on whether it was primiparous or multiparous sow. Again this creates a bit of confusion. Sows were recorded, 50% primiparous and 50% multiparous to evaluate behaviour, and results are discussed accorging to that (lines 320-321). Why productivity data was not available?
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
However, it would be more elegant to have more batches.
| null | null |
Figure 5 and 7 display the overall causes of mortality for the three batches. However, differences in batches were found. Could this overall causes be biased by this batch effect?
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The writing and data presenting need to be improved.
| null | null |
Please add the important information to the footnote or figure legend of the tables and figures. Such as: abbreviations, replicates n=?, mean±SD/SE, ect.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
As mentioned earlier, we did not have resources t continue the data collection within the time period we had.
| null | null |
Please italic the P value throughout the paper.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
Finally, thank you for being so patient with our manuscript
| null | null |
Lines 129-133, where is the figure 1?
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The following changes could improve the quality of the paper.
| null | null |
Line 263, please add “(3 batches with TRAD and 2 batches with SOWCOMF)” to the figure legends.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The paper deals with an interesting topic and totally up to date to provide farmers with solutions for free farrowing (which in Europe may become mandatory under The End of the Cage Age initiative).
| null | null |
Line 275-276, Space needed before and after “±”.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
Finally, thank you for being so patient with our manuscript
| null | null |
The quality of the Figrue 6 need to be improved.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The writing and data presenting need to be improved.
| null | null |
Figure 7, using “*” to substitute the different letters to express the difference.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
This was unfortunately not possible in the present iinnovation project.
| null | null |
Table 4, please using the writing way to present the table.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The writing and data presenting need to be improved.
| null | null |
Figure8, do not understand the meaning of “***” here?
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The paper deals with an interesting topic and totally up to date to provide farmers with solutions for free farrowing (which in Europe may become mandatory under The End of the Cage Age initiative).
| null | null |
Figure 7, please improve the perspective of the figure.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 0 |
The results are described and discussed in detail.
| null | null |
lines 102 and 113: Were the seeds collected in 2000 and sown in 2021?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 0 |
Additional corrections through the text have been done.
| null | null |
How many seeds were collected?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 0 |
Tripodi et al., seeks to set a basis of authenticity of ‘Peperone Cornetto di Pontecorvo’ sweet pepper by using a combinatory approach of biochemical, genetic, and agronomic markers/traits.
| null | null |
line 115: Did one repetition mean one plant?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 0 |
Conclusion: What kind of broader impact of this work could be?
| null | null |
line 130: How many fruits were used as a sample of representative fruits?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 0 |
1) The introduction part is a bit long, although it states the importance of this local variety of sweet pepper and of tracing its origin.
| null | null |
The introduction part is a bit long, although it states the importance of this local variety of sweet pepper and of tracing its origin.
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 0 |
We also thank you for the positive and encouraging comment.
| null | null |
In figure 3: why CP cultivars in purple lines are clustered with CC and MG in green? Any explanation?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 0 |
2) In figure 3: why CP cultivars in purple lines are clustered with CC and MG in green?
| null | null |
“products”
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 0 |
We also thank you for the positive and encouraging comment.
| null | null |
Line 245: would be better to show the value of each agronomic trait mentioned here
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 0 |
2) In figure 3: why CP cultivars in purple lines are clustered with CC and MG in green?
| null | null |
Line 385-388: the figure legend does not provide enough information on this figure
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 0 |
#Answer: Thanks We hope that these revisions successfully address the raised concerns, remaining available for any other requests regarding the manuscript.
| null | null |
Line 435: it may not be worth to mention the sweet pepper as the first 30 crops Line 468: “GBS”?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 0 |
line 135: How many fruits were used as a bulk of representative fruits?
| null | null |
Line 468: “GBS”? Genotype by sequencing?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 0 |
Tripodi et al., seeks to set a basis of authenticity of ‘Peperone Cornetto di Pontecorvo’ sweet pepper by using a combinatory approach of biochemical, genetic, and agronomic markers/traits.
| null | null |
What kind of broader impact of this work could be?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 0 |
Additional corrections through the text have been done.
| null | null |
lines 102 and 113: Were the seeds collected in 2000 and sown in 2021?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 0 |
Below point by point response to concerns Reviewer 1 The manuscript is generally well written.
| null | null |
How many seeds were collected?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 0 |
We also thank you for the positive and encouraging comment.
| null | null |
line 115: Did one repetition mean one plant?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 0 |
Below point by point response to concerns Reviewer 2 Tripodi et al., seeks to set a basis of authenticity of ‘Peperone Cornetto di Pontecorvo’ sweet pepper by using a combinatory approach of biochemical, genetic, and agronomic markers/traits.
| null | null |
line 135: How many fruits were used as a bulk of representative fruits?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 0 |
This work is quite interesting and is well-written.
| null | null |
Conclusion: What kind of broader impact of this work could be?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 0 |
Author Response Dear Reviewer We would like to thank You for your attention to our work and for carefully reading our manuscript.
| null | null |
The introduction part is a bit long, although it states the importance of this local variety of sweet pepper and of tracing its origin.
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 0 |
Changes in respect to the previous version are in track changes.
| null | null |
In figure 3: why CP cultivars in purple lines are clustered with CC and MG in green? Any explanation?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 0 |
line 135: How many fruits were used as a bulk of representative fruits?
| null | null |
Line 37: “products”
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 0 |
See the attachment Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
| null | null |
Line 245: would be better to show the value of each agronomic trait mentioned here
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 0 |
We have carefully considered comments and thoughtful suggestions, revising the manuscript accordingly.
| null | null |
Line 385-388: the figure legend does not provide enough information on this figure
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 0 |
Additional corrections through the text have been done.
| null | null |
Line 435: it may not be worth to mention the sweet pepper as the first 30 crops
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 0 |
#Answer: Again, we would like to thank You for your attention and for carefully reading the manuscript.
| null | null |
Line 468: “GBS”? Genotype by sequencing?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 0 |
Others: Line 37: “products” Line 245: would be better to show the value of each agronomic trait mentioned here Line 385-388: the figure legend does not provide enough information on this figure Line 435: it may not be worth to mention the sweet pepper as the first 30 crops Line 468: “GBS”?
| null | null |
Conclusion: What kind of broader impact of this work could be?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 0 |
It is perfectly feasible that some owners did not leave their homes because they were for example, ill, but they did so during the pandemic.
| null | null |
A catchy topic, but its content is unoriginal, bringing nothing new to the pre-pandemic science. It seems that the authors of this study have already tackled this topic exhaustively in their previous articles
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
According to the authors, the main finding is that dogs whose leaving time reduced the most during the lockdown were most at risk of developing new SRBs.
| null | null |
The entire first paragraph of Discussion repeats what has already been written in earlier chapters (line 372-379).
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Author Response Thank you for your time in reviewing this manuscript and for your constructive, helpful feedback.
| null | null |
Line 382-384 „To our knowledge, this is the first empirical evidence to show a link between changes in dogs’ leaving routines and risk of SRBs.” The authors take priority in the empirical demonstration of changes in dogs when the routine of the day is disturbed. And changing the routine of the day is a well-known factor influencing the dog's welfare and behavior, including the occurrence of separation anxiety, so the above-quoted sentence should be deleted because it is untrue. The authors have hardly studied all the publications on how dogs behave when daily routines were changed, so the term "first study" is exaggerated.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Larger issues: I would like to see the authors address a few different angles in the discussion 1.
| null | null |
Line 444 „This study has provided a unique and valuable insight into…..” the authors also mark their only unique role in the study, which does not bring new content.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
The sample size is good, and the results are interesting.
| null | null |
My only suggestion is that making it clear why February and October were chosen as survey-points may be beneficial. This is discussed later on but highlighting here would be useful.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
My only suggestion is that making it clear why February and October were chosen as survey-points may be beneficial.
| null | null |
Aa little more mention of issues of SRBs from owner perspective (e.g. noise complaints and issues with housing; property damage; decline of human-pet bond) could be beneficial (line 56-57).
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
We have addressed your comments and responded in the attached file.
| null | null |
It may be helpful to discuss why there is poor owner adherence to programmes to reduce SRB (Line 66-67).
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
The article is generally well-written, the topic is timely, important, and interesting from a dog welfare aspect.
| null | null |
I wasn't sure if line 79-80 was needed- about dogs having returned to pre-pandemic pattern, I think it is a little dismissive of your own research which is valuable and applicable beyond the pandemic.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Introduction: This is clear and in general provides a good background to the topic (bar a couple of points where more expansion would be beneficial).
| null | null |
Line 96-97- some more detail on the findings of these various surveys would be beneficial similarly to Bowen's study, just so provide a clear background/discussion of literature setting scene for your study.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
The study reports that pet dogs whose leaving routines changed most during the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., their owners left them alone less frequently) would be at greater risk of developing separation-related behaviours following the lifting of pandemic restrictions.
| null | null |
It may be beneficial to make it clear why cut off of 'at least 5 mins' was used, e.g. justification for this/why this time duration used.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Line 382-384 „To our knowledge, this is the first empirical evidence to show a link between changes in dogs’ leaving routines and risk of SRBs.” The authors take priority in the empirical demonstration of changes in dogs when the routine of the day is disturbed.
| null | null |
Line 131: There was an error with referencing wanted to flag.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Author Response Thank you for your time in reviewing this manuscript and for your constructive, helpful feedback.
| null | null |
It may be useful to spell out a little more here why these survey periods were chosen here, this is covered elsewhere but think could be made clearer here and earlier.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
The authors still take priority in the empirical demonstration of changes in dogs when the routine of the day is disturbed.
| null | null |
Figure 1- Perhaps just double-check this is referred to in the text. Think either way this figure would benefit a bit of context on why was included/what was showing in context of this study as currently info is a bit generic and didn't totally tie into people's working from home etc.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
They do not seem to state dog is favouring them less unless text was omitted here.
| null | null |
However, I don't think the figures were referred to in the text (unless that was the errors highlighted below?)
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Lines 383-384: Change “dogs’ leaving routines” to “dogs’ time left alone” Thank you, this edit has been applied.
| null | null |
There were some errors where reference source not found which would want to look into (line 246; 265; 274; 292; 305; 323 etc).
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Lines 383-384: Change “dogs’ leaving routines” to “dogs’ time left alone” Thank you, this edit has been applied.
| null | null |
Line 366-369= I'm not sure it's totally fair to interpret this (the dog not always bringing toy when greeting them) as an anthropomorphic interpretation on the part of the owner- the anthropomorphic interpretation seems to be from authors of manuscript not owner? They do not seem to state dog is favouring them less unless text was omitted here.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
L238 Do the authors have information about the Owner demographics?
| null | null |
I felt the discussion about changes in greeting behaviour as an early indicator was interesting and could be expanded. Some more detail on the application of the findings to practitioners/owners would be beneficial. I do think this is of interest to a range of stakeholders.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Manuscript has been slightly improved, but my comments were not included.
| null | null |
P6 L176 I am assuming you excluded dogs that were not left alone in February (or were there none?)
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Line 366-369= I'm not sure it's totally fair to interpret this (the dog not always bringing toy when greeting them) as an anthropomorphic interpretation on the part of the owner- the anthropomorphic interpretation seems to be from authors of manuscript not owner?
| null | null |
P10 L307-308 Could you make this a positive statement to show highlight the impact of amount of change on SRB: Dogs whose days left alone per week increased the most…If the data support that angle, I think it’s a stronger statement than what is written.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Larger issues: I would like to see the authors address a few different angles in the discussion 1.
| null | null |
1. That dogs showing SRB prior to lockdown were more likely to show it after. Suggests the behavior is fairly robust and dogs having shown it at one point continue to be at risk (without knowing what interventions were taken)
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
In other words, 1407/1807 (78%) of dogs were clear of SRB in February and 90.1% in October.
| null | null |
2. Can you address the dogs that improved between Feb and Oct? You report the number of new dogs showing SRB but can you report on dogs that went the other way? What was the actual # and %? It seems you have compared within dogs that showed SRB in baseline and other models for dogs that did not. Seems a comparison between SRB- (baseline) → SRB + (post lockdown) and SRB + (baseline) → SRB- (post lockdown) dogs is critical and missing. This comparison seems essential—if some dogs get worse but some get better, than the argument that changes due to COVID might bring about new SRB becomes weaker.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
We have addressed your comments and responded in the attached file.
| null | null |
3.60 One of the challenges in this is we don’t know background rates of change for dogs with SRB. That is, would the same % of dogs changed (in either direction) regardless of changes in owner schedules? We might see some dogs become sensitized over time and develop SRB (or something else changes in their life to precipitate it), while others might habituate or their behavior undergo extinction. As such, we can’t say for certain that these changes are due to changes in owner schedule. You note that the pseudo-R2 was small but I think you could go into more details and note the possibility that it was unrelated too. However, your results that the greater the change → the greater the new risk of SRB does lend support to the idea that this change in management might be a factor. I would suggest highlighting and discussing this outcome more.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
L382 Please refer to Flannigan and Dodman (2001) here (owner’s work schedule affects separation problems).
| null | null |
Title: change “Leaving Pattern” to “Time Spent Away”; leaving pattern is less clear (it could be frequency of leaving each day)
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
It may be beneficial to make it clear why cut off of 'at least 5 mins' was used, e.g justification for this/why this time duration used.
| null | null |
Line 214: if possible (might not be possible if this was how it was phrased in the survey), change “different to before” to “different from before”
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
This is good news, and it is unclear for me why is it reported as bad news.
| null | null |
Lines 383-384: Change “dogs’ leaving routines” to “dogs’ time left alone”
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
An error message occurred in several places (e.g., line 131, line 246, line 265)
| null | null |
Line 151: how was the criterion of “at least 5 minutes” chosen?
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
However, the authors do not focus on this result and do not explain this finding.
| null | null |
My main question when reading this section concerned how owners would know that certain separation-related behaviors occurred when they were away? There would be evidence for some behaviors, such as destructive behavior or defecation, but how would owners know about pacing or tail-chasing? This topic is not addressed until the Discussion section (line 395) but should be addressed here in the Methods and Materials section. Were behaviors, including different vocalizations, defined for owners? For example, what is the difference between pined, whined, and cried?
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
My main question when reading this section concerned how owners would know that certain separation-related behaviors occurred when they were away?
| null | null |
Also, I might have missed it, but did all of these owners live alone with their dog(s), meaning no other people in the household? If other people were present, did all of them have to be away or just the dog’s owner? This information might be presented in your other paper, but it would be good to include this basic information here as well, so readers can better understand your methods and findings.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
L22 and elsewhere: dogs’ “leaving time” or “leaving hours” I think this expression is misleading because it is not the dogs that have left home, but the owners.
| null | null |
Line 166: define “devolved nations” for readers unfamiliar with the term.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown on management of pet dogs in the UK.
| null | null |
Figure 2: should the blank box for “Feb, Not at all” be 0.0%?
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Line 96-97- some more detail on the findings of these various surveys would be beneficial similarly to Bowen's study, just so provide a clear background/discussion of literature setting scene for your study.
| null | null |
Figure 4 is not called out in the text of the Results section.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
The study reports that pet dogs whose leaving routines changed most during the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., their owners left them alone less frequently) would be at greater risk of developing separation-related behaviours following the lifting of pandemic restrictions.
| null | null |
I believe Animals requires a Conclusions section.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
The whole section is not relevant to the main question.
| null | null |
Line 100: insert “the” after “in”
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
According to the authors, the main finding is that dogs whose leaving time reduced the most during the lockdown were most at risk of developing new SRBs.
| null | null |
Line 355: delete the first “the”
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
An error message occurred in several places (e.g., line 131, line 246, line 265)
| null | null |
However, currently, the paper seems too long, and it goes into too much detail about how the pandemic took place in the UK. This information would have been interesting if data on the mood, stress level, general mental health of the owners had also been collected in connection with the pandemic and the links with dog behaviour have been investigated. But the questionnaire only asked how long the dogs had been alone and what they were doing during this time. Therefore, the detailed description of the pandemic is unnecessary and could be moved to the Supplemental material, together with Figure 1.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
The authors have hardly studied all the publications on how dogs behave when daily routines were changed, so the term "first study" is exaggerated.
| null | null |
I think that according to the statistics, the strongest finding is that dogs who showed SRB in February or May had increased odds of having SRB during the subsequent measures which is not surprising. What is surprising though is that 55.7% of the dogs who were reported to show SRB in February (before the pandemic) were clear in October which is good news. However, the authors do not focus on this result and do not explain this finding.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
For example, what is the difference between pined, whined, and cried?
| null | null |
L18-20 „Whether dogs showed SRBs or not changed considerably over the months of the study, and one in ten dogs were found to have developed new SRBs in October, that they didn’t show before the pandemic” Overall, the percentage of dogs showing SRBs decreased during the study, and this should be clarified in the sentence above. What I see in Figure 4 and in the text is that approx. half of the dogs from the SRB group moved to the Clear group in October.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
We have addressed your comments and responded in the attached file.
| null | null |
L22 and elsewhere: dogs’ “leaving time” or “leaving hours” I think this expression is misleading because it is not the dogs that have left home, but the owners. But this is the opinion of a person using English as a second language.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
What was the proportion of owners who did not leave their dog at home before the pandemic?
| null | null |
L45 Separation behaviour, separation-related behaviour, separation distress, separation anxiety terms are used interchangeably throughout the text, although these terms do not necessarily describe the same behaviours. Please provide a clear definition of the behaviour aimed to study and stick to one term.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Study periods: It may be useful to spell out a little more here why these survey periods were chosen here, this is covered elsewhere but think could be made clearer here and earlier.
| null | null |
L92 delete the comma after Bowen et al.’s.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
What was the proportion of owners who indicated that they would like to participate in the follow-up study?
| null | null |
L92-92 28.5% of dogs reported to have SRPs – this is a much higher number than mentioned in previous studies and needs to be discussed.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
If other people were present, did all of them have to be away or just the dog’s owner?
| null | null |
L118 Materials and Methods This section (after the Ethics) should begin with the Subjects section. It is confusing to read about the surveys without knowing the sample sizes per survey and the demographics.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
This topic is not addressed until the Discussion section (line 395) but should be addressed here in the Methods and Materials section.
| null | null |
L127-137 The dates of data collections have been already mentioned in L121-126, so there is no need for repeating them. The whole section is not relevant to the main question.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
What was the proportion of owners who indicated that they would like to participate in the follow-up study?
| null | null |
L131-132 and elsewhere: (Error! Reference source not found.) This error occurs 7 times in the text, please correct.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Conclusions: I believe Animals requires a Conclusions section.
| null | null |
L148 Please explain why a period of 7 days were asked to be reported
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Author Response Thank you for your time in reviewing this manuscript and for your constructive, helpful feedback.
| null | null |
L165-167 Figure 1. This Figure should be moved to the Supplement material as it tells nothing about the dogs’ behaviour.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Line 29: change “dogs whose leaving hours reduce most” to “dogs whose time left alone decreased most” Thank you, this edit has been applied.
| null | null |
L216-218 “The text was then coded by two researchers” I could not find agreement data reported later.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
P10 L307-308 Could you make this a positive statement to show highlight the impact of amount of change on SRB: Dogs whose days left alone per week increased the most…If the data support that angle, I think it’s a stronger statement than what is written.
| null | null |
L238 Do the authors have information about the Owner demographics? What was the proportion of females? Was there a relationship between age and leaving hours? Or explain why this information has not been used.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
As such, we can’t say for certain that these changes are due to changes in owner schedule.
| null | null |
L232-242 These sections should be moved to the Materials and Methods as a “Subjects” section
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown on management of pet dogs in the UK.
| null | null |
L232 How many owners have filled in the questionnaire altogether? What was the proportion of owners who did not leave their dog at home before the pandemic? Why were they excluded? It is perfectly feasible that some owners did not leave their homes because they were for example, ill, but they did so during the pandemic. What was the proportion of owners who indicated that they would like to participate in the follow-up study? Among them, what was the proportion of owners who has not responded to the request afterward?
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Figure 4 is not called out in the text of the Results section.
| null | null |
L278-280 “There were 1,407 dogs who were clear of SRB at baseline in February 2020. When looking at SRB status in October, of 1,187 dogs who were left alone in October, 117 (9.9%) were reported to have shown at least one SRB”. In other words, 1407/1807 (78%) of dogs were clear of SRB in February and 90.1% in October. This is good news, and it is unclear for me why is it reported as bad news. The next section (l281-283) emphasizes that 55.7% of the dogs who were reported to show SRB in February were clear in October. This is a big improvement, I think.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.