European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety, ISSN: 2347-5641,Vol.: 8, Issue.: 2(April-June)

Original-research-article

Aflatoxin M1 Reduction in Milk by a Novel Combination of Probiotic Bacterial and Yeast Strains

 

Neveen M. Abdelmotilib1, Gamal M. Hamad1*, Hesham B. Elderea2, Eglal G. Salem2 and Sobhy A. El Sohaimy1

1Department of Food Technology, Arid Lands Cultvation Research Institute (ALCRI), City of Scientific Research and Technology Applications (SRTA- CITY), New Borg El-Arab City, Alexandria, Egypt.

2Food Hygiene and Control, High Institute of Public Health (HIPH), Alexandria University, Egypt.

General Comment

1. Up to 6th August 2012, all SDI journals followed strict double-blind review policy to ensure neutral evaluation. During this review process identity of both, the authors and reviewers are kept hidden to ensure the unbiased evaluation. More information is available at this link.

 

2. We have migrated to transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ system (Detailed general information is available at this link). The identity of the authors and reviewers will be revealed to each other during this review process. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers (Example Link). If reviewers do not want to reveal their identities, we will honour that request. In that case, only the review reports will be published as ‘anonymous reviewer report’.

 

3. Additionally ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ greatly helps in ‘continuity and advancement of science’. We firmly believe that all the files related to peer review of a manuscript are valuable and hold an important place in the continuity and advancement of science. If publishers publish the peer review reports along with published papers, this process can result in savings of thousands of hours of future authors during experiments, manuscript preparation, etc. by minimising the common errors after reading these previously published peer review reports. Therefore, as per our new official policy update, if the manuscript is published, all peer review reports will be available to the readers. All files (like the original manuscript, comments of the reviewers, revised manuscript, and editorial comment (if any)) related to the peer review, will be available in “Review history” link along with the published paper (Example Link).

 

4. Additionally, we believe that one of the main objectives of peer review system is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Normally we try to publish the ‘average marks (out of 10)’ a manuscript received at initial peer review stage and at final publication stage to record its history of improvement during peer review. This process further increases the transparency. It is more important to record the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly’ than claiming that 'our peer review system is perfect’. Therefore, these transparent processes (i.e. publication of review history files and scores of a particular manuscript) additionally give a clear idea of the strength and weakness of a published paper to the readers. This process enhances the chances of proper use of the result of research (and or reduces the chances of misuse of the weakness of the findings of the paper). Thus this transparent process may prove to be highly beneficial for the society in the long run.

 

Specific Comment

Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.5/10

Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 8/10

Peer review history

Stage Description File 1 File 2
Stage 1 Original Manuscript File 1 NA
Stage 2 Peer review report_1 (Silvia Denise Peña Betancourt, México) File 1 NA
Stage 2 Peer review report_2 (Samson Kibet Chebon, Kenya) File 1 NA
Stage 2 Peer review report_3 (Larine Kupski, Brasil) File 1 NA
Stage 2 Peer review report_4 (Bailly Jean-Denis, France) File 1 NA
Stage 2 Peer review report_5 (Tünde Pusztahelyi, Hungary) File 1 NA
Stage 2 Revised_MS_v1_and_Feedback_v1 File 1 File 2
Stage 2 Re-Review report_1_v1 (Silvia Denise Peña Betancourt, México) (No Response) NA NA
Stage 2 Re-Review report_2_v1 (Samson Kibet Chebon, Kenya) (No Response) NA NA
Stage 2 Re-Review report_3_v1 (Larine Kupski, Brasil) (Decline) NA NA
Stage 2 Re-Review report_4_v1 (Bailly Jean-Denis, France) File 1 NA
Stage 2 Re-Review report_5_v1 (Tünde Pusztahelyi, Hungary) File 1 NA
Stage 2 Revised_MS_v2_and_Feedback_v2 File 1 File 2
Stage 2 Re-Review report_1_v2 (Silvia Denise Peña Betancourt, México) (No Response) NA NA
Stage 2 Re-Review report_2_v2 (Samson Kibet Chebon, Kenya) File 1 File 2
Stage 2 Re-Review report_3_v2 (Larine Kupski, Brasil) (Decline) NA NA
Stage 2 Re-Review report_4_v2 (Bailly Jean-Denis, France) (Decline) NA NA
Stage 2 Revised_MS_v3_and_Feedback_v3 File 1 NA
Stage 3 Comment_Editor_1_v1 File 1 NA
Stage 3 Comment_Editor_2_v1 File 1 NA