Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Aerosol Therapy during the Escalation of Care in a Model of Adult Cystic Fibrosis
Next Article in Special Issue
The Use of Colistin in Food-Producing Animals in Estonia—Vaccination as an Effective Alternative to Consumption of Critically Important Antimicrobials in Pigs
Previous Article in Journal
Antimicrobial Stewardship and Its Impact on the Changing Epidemiology of Polymyxin Use in a South Indian Healthcare Setting
Previous Article in Special Issue
Examining the Effect of Context, Beliefs, and Values on UK Farm Veterinarians’ Antimicrobial Prescribing: A Randomized Experimental Vignette and Cross-Sectional Survey
 
 
Conference Report
Peer-Review Record

Alternatives to Antibiotics: A Symposium on the Challenges and Solutions for Animal Health and Production

Antibiotics 2021, 10(5), 471; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10050471
by Todd R. Callaway 1,*, Hyun Lillehoj 2, Rungtip Chuanchuen 3 and Cyril G. Gay 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Antibiotics 2021, 10(5), 471; https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10050471
Submission received: 8 March 2021 / Revised: 13 April 2021 / Accepted: 19 April 2021 / Published: 21 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Stewardship in Veterinary Medicine)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a timely review on a highly important topic.
The overall impression is that it could do with some editing to make it more coherent, non-repetitive and clear. It seems a little bit pieced together of chunks of text that have not been fully worked through to merge into one, coherent text. 
In addition there are quite a number of linguistic ambiguities making some parts difficult to read - I have indicated some of these in the attached document as comments. I have also indicated a couple of places in which I think key references are lacking. Also consider the balance as the Phytochemicals sections is at least 30% bigger than the other sections - and also reads more like minutes of the meeting than the other sections.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their comments and suggestions.  All of the suggestions were made in accordance with their comments.  Because their comments were embedded in the PDF, it was difficult to produce a line by line response for each one.  But all changes were made, and the reviewer definitely increased the strength of the manuscript.   THe phytochemical section was cut down by about 31% (word count).  All changes are indicated in mark changes in word version.  We thank the reviewer and editor for their suggestions for improvement.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop