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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
We hope that we have given full consideration to all comments. We found them very useful and they increased the value of our paper considerably.
| 2 | 1 |
I hope my suggestions are given full consideration, as I believe that they will assist them in achieving this important objective.
| 1 | 2 |
admsci6020005_perova
| 1 |
We cleaned up our description of the experimental design by adding the questions that we asked, the scale we used etc. We included the example of David Beckham. In this context we cited Matzler et al (Personality, person-brand fit, and brand community: An investigation of individuals, brands, and brand communities. Journal Of Marketing Management) who looked into the archetype-brand-consumer match. We are delighted that our reviewer sees the link (as the authors do) between Aaker and Jung’s images of Freedom, Social, Order and Ego.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
We tried our best to address this problem, see the revised version of our paper. However, this is an uphill task. It goes in the direction of advertising effectiveness. We would have loved to cite some reliable sources on advertising effectiveness e.g. by means of neurophysiological evidence based research but tried in vain.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
line 76 and 79: Sentence about two farms with financial support is deleted from the aim.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Line 78: "designed to meet behavioural needs...." is deleted Overall, the objective now is focused on the hypotheses.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
l 80-83 is now deleted from the objectives 4.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 80 – 83 moves to discussion section 4.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
Figure 1 must was lost from the last document, and we are so sorry for this. The figure is now included in the new document.
| 2 | 1 |
Figure 1 is missing 5.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
More explanation is included in the figure text of figure 2
| 2 | 1 |
Figure 2 needs more description, maybe include which wall… Please describe units of the dimensions 6.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
Corrections are made in the text of figure 4.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
l 206, l225 Info is changed according to the reviewers request.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Insted of inserting P-values in the text when reporting significant differences for the ones that are in tables, we have included more references to the stat-tables.
| 2 | 1 |
Please include P values when report significant differences.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
This is now included.
| 2 | 1 |
Figure 1 does not appear in the pdf that this reviewer could download. Only the Figure Caption appears.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
Stillborn piglets vs piglets with no milk: more details are included about this in the description of the M/M
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
224-225: confusion about parity is corrected,
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Figure 5 and 7. There is always effects of batches in these types of studies. This is also why we prefer to have several batches, but the main effect should not be biased by the batch effect in the present study, as the main finding are quite clear even in our small data set.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
mean + se is given in all tables and figures, Replicates are now included and abbreviations explained.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Italic for P-values in the text. Done!
| 2 | 1 |
Please italic the P value throughout the paper.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
Figure 1 was no included by an error in the last MS. It is now inserted again.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 129-133, where is the figure 1?
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
Batches and number of litters are added to the figure legends.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 263, please add “(3 batches with TRAD and 2 batches with SOWCOMF)” to the figure legends.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
Space before and after sign is added.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 275-276, Space needed before and after “±”.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
A new and improved version of figure 6 is now included.
| 2 | 1 |
The quality of the Figrue 6 need to be improved.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
We have inserted * to denote differences instead of letters.
| 2 | 1 |
Figure 7, using “*” to substitute the different letters to express the difference.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
Table 4 is inserted again in the writing form.
| 2 | 1 |
Table 4, please using the writing way to present the table.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
The meaning of ***: this is explained.
| 2 | 1 |
Figure8, do not understand the meaning of “***” here?
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
Quality of figure 7 is improved.
| 2 | 1 |
Figure 7, please improve the perspective of the figure.
| 1 | 2 |
agriculture12060868_makarova
| 1 |
We better clarified this in the method section (L101, L105-106). 2000 is the year of the establishment of Conservation and Safety Network. In this frame, seeds were collected and maintained in long term storage conditions by Arsial in the subsequent years.
| 2 | 1 |
lines 102 and 113: Were the seeds collected in 2000 and sown in 2021?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 1 |
Between 8-10 grams (about 2000 seeds) we don’t think is a detail to insert in the manuscript.
| 2 | 1 |
How many seeds were collected?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 1 |
Yes, we clarified (L116).
| 2 | 1 |
line 115: Did one repetition mean one plant?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 1 |
We added these details (L132 and L136) The results are described and discussed in detail.
| 2 | 1 |
line 130: How many fruits were used as a sample of representative fruits?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 1 |
We prefer to keep the introduction in order to give a broad overview to readers
| 2 | 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.
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 1 |
The cluster analysis is based on phenotypic traits, this analysis revealed specific clusters of "Cornetto di Pontecorvo" and similar types, although they were not clearly separated at the hierarchical level. The genotyping analysis provided more in-depth insights. We addressed this in the discussions section (see L485 and subsequent).
| 2 | 1 |
In figure 3: why CP cultivars in purple lines are clustered with CC and MG in green? Any explanation?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 1 |
Product is correct since refer to This crop (singular), we specify (as a food and non-food product)
| 2 | 1 |
“products”
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 1 |
We agree and better positioned the table 3 after the sentence Line 385-388: the figure legend does not provide enough information on this figure #Answer:
| 2 | 1 |
Line 245: would be better to show the value of each agronomic trait mentioned here
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 1 |
Figure 4 caption has been improved
| 2 | 1 |
Line 385-388: the figure legend does not provide enough information on this figure
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 1 |
We agree and modified the sentence (see L439)
| 2 | 1 |
Line 435: it may not be worth to mention the sweet pepper as the first 30 crops Line 468: “GBS”?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 1 |
We change referring to ddRAD seq (see L473) Conclusion:
| 2 | 1 |
Line 468: “GBS”? Genotype by sequencing?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 1 |
In order to answer to this question, we improved the conclusion (L524-529)
| 2 | 1 |
What kind of broader impact of this work could be?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_makarova
| 1 |
We better clarified this in the method section (L101, L105-106). 2000 is the year of the establishment of Conservation and Safety Network. In this frame, seeds were collected and maintained in long term storage conditions by Arsial in the subsequent years.
| 2 | 1 |
lines 102 and 113: Were the seeds collected in 2000 and sown in 2021?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 1 |
Between 8-10 grams (about 2000 seeds) we don’t think is a detail to insert in the manuscript.
| 2 | 1 |
How many seeds were collected?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 1 |
Yes, we clarified (L116).
| 2 | 1 |
line 115: Did one repetition mean one plant?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 1 |
We added these details (L132 and L136)
| 2 | 1 |
line 135: How many fruits were used as a bulk of representative fruits?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 1 |
We have carefully considered comments and thoughtful suggestions, revising the manuscript accordingly. All amendments suggested have been included. Additional corrections through the text have been done.
| 2 | 1 |
Conclusion: What kind of broader impact of this work could be?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 1 |
We prefer to keep the introduction in order to give a broad overview to readers
| 2 | 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.
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 1 |
The cluster analysis is based on phenotypic traits, this analysis revealed specific clusters of "Cornetto di Pontecorvo" and similar types, although they were not clearly separated at the hierarchical level. The genotyping analysis provided more in-depth insights. We addressed this in the discussions section (see L485 and subsequent).
| 2 | 1 |
In figure 3: why CP cultivars in purple lines are clustered with CC and MG in green? Any explanation?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 1 |
Product is correct since refer to This crop (singular), we specify (as a food and non-food product)
| 2 | 1 |
Line 37: “products”
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 1 |
We agree and better positioned the table 3 after the sentence
| 2 | 1 |
Line 245: would be better to show the value of each agronomic trait mentioned here
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 1 |
Figure 4 caption has been improved
| 2 | 1 |
Line 385-388: the figure legend does not provide enough information on this figure
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 1 |
We agree and modified the sentence (see L439)
| 2 | 1 |
Line 435: it may not be worth to mention the sweet pepper as the first 30 crops
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 1 |
We change referring to ddRAD seq (see L473)
| 2 | 1 |
Line 468: “GBS”? Genotype by sequencing?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 1 |
In order to answer to this question, we improved the conclusion (L524-529)
| 2 | 1 |
Conclusion: What kind of broader impact of this work could be?
| 1 | 2 |
agronomy12061433_perova
| 1 |
The content of the two papers Reviewer 1 mentions here focussed on the impact of the pandemic on management changes in dogs and on dog owner experiences at a single time point during the most restrictive ‘lockdown’. The current paper is different to either of these, and indeed any other published paper, in that it focusses on changes in separation related behaviour over time, across two different surveys in a longitudinal cohort. The paper is about separation-related behaviour, not about the pandemic. The changes in leaving routine that occurred during the pandemic afforded the opportunity to study what impact this had on a large population of pet dogs over time, that would otherwise have been impossible to capture at such scale. The topic is unique and important in that it adds evidence for an association that has previously been supposed or observed by individual practitioners, but not demonstrated in the published literature, and certainly not on this scale.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Yes, this was purposeful, it provides a summary of the aims & methods to introduce the discussion as not everyone reads papers in a linear fashion. We have not made any changes based on this statement.
| 2 | 1 |
The entire first paragraph of Discussion repeats what has already been written in earlier chapters (line 372-379).
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
There is a difference between something that is considered to be “well-known” or folk-knowledge and demonstrable evidence. The sentence quoted here is not untrue, or exaggerated, however, if the Editor wishes us to explore this further, we would kindly request the Reviewer provide us with examples of publications where this has been empirically demonstrated, as we have not found any in our own searches.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Given the lack of constructive feedback in these statements, no changes have been made based on these comments.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Thank you, in line 16 and 32 we have added “when restrictions had eased” to explain why we surveyed in October 2020.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Thank you, we have now expanded this to read: “In addition to being a welfare concern for the dog, SRBs are often unwanted or problematic for the owner and/or neighbours such as in the case of excessive vocalisation, which may lead to noise complaints, or in terms of house soiling and destruction of property, which may be particularly problematic for people living in rental accommodation. In such cases, these issues may increase risk of relinquishment [7]” (see new lines 56-59) It may be helpful to discuss why there is poor owner adherence to programmes to reduce SRB (Line 66-67).
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
The following text has now been added beginning at line 69: “Whilst the precise reasons for poor adherence to advice for preventing or reducing SRBs have not been documented, it is at least partly attributed to the relative difficulty of adhering to specific aspects of these programmes, with the easier pieces of advice followed more often than the parts that take more commitment and consideration [13].” 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.
| 2 | 1 |
It may be helpful to discuss why there is poor owner adherence to programmes to reduce SRB (Line 66-67).
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
Thank you for your comment, I think we were pre-judging that people would think it was just another covid paper, and we are glad to see you agree with us that it is valuable beyond the pandemic. This line has now been deleted.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
The findings were all extremely similar, so it felt quite repetitive to discuss them all. We actually had more detail in an early draft then trimmed it out. However, we have now added some more of this detail as requested (see lines 100 to 112), whilst trying to limit repetition.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
We presumed that at some point owners would pop out of the house, to take out the bin or go to the garage etc.. Such leaving events are likely to be experienced differently by some dogs, as the owners won’t likely give off the same cues as when they leave for an extended period of time, such as picking up house keys, or leaving through a different door. This has been explained now in lines 179-83.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Thank you, this seemed ok when we submitted it, but must have gone wrong when uploaded but we’ve corrected it now.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 131: There was an error with referencing wanted to flag.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
We’ve amended description of the study periods in a few places, including between lines 132-142, which we hope addresses this query now.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
One of the other reviewers also commented on this and asked for Figure 1 and much of the text to be moved to the supplemental material, so It’s also further explained in the supplementary material how it links to working and in lines 140-142 in the main text which now explains that many businesses were open again in October.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
This was due to the errors you mentioned below. We used the Word automatic referencing and somehow that seemed to get broken when the document was uploaded to the online system. It’s been done manually now.
| 2 | 1 |
However, I don't think the figures were referred to in the text (unless that was the errors highlighted below?)
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
See above.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Agreed, this was how we interpreted why the owner was reporting this change. We have rephrased this section now.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Thank you for your review. We have expanded the discussion to address these points, however due to another reviewer saying the paper was already too long, we have kept this brief. A section detailing relevance to practitioners has been added to lines 545-551.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Yes, this is correct. This is stated in line 232-233 or the original submission, but it seems we omitted it from the Methods section. Thank you for spotting that. Text has been added to lines 198-200 to explain this.
| 2 | 1 |
P6 L176 I am assuming you excluded dogs that were not left alone in February (or were there none?)
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
Within the results table (Table 2) the direction of the estimate for this result is negative. Whilst we agree that it would be more impactful worded the other way around, we worry that changing the way it is described won’t match up to the data as it was coded and reported. We haven’t changed this wording for these reasons.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Yes, and no, depending on your perspective. Whilst this was a significant predictor in the modelling, in reality 55% of dogs that were being left again changed from SRB+ to SRB-. So whilst 45% of dogs still showed it, a large proportion did not.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Thank you for these thoughtful comments, we agree that we were a bit overly focussed on the results that supported the studies hypothesis and neglected to discuss the findings related to the dogs whose SRB appeared to have resolved. The number and percentage are detailed in the results section (lines 282-283 of the original submission and 298-298 in this one), but we failed to discuss these in the Discussion. We ran two models, one focussing on the dogs who started SRB- to see how many changed to SRB+ or remained SRB- and what factors influenced this, and the other focussing on dogs that started SRB+ to see what factors influence whether they changed to SRB- or remained SRB+. These models therefore, cover the comparisons you suggest (unless we’ve misinterpreted your comments). We have now added some discussion of the dogs who began the pandemic SRB+ however, as this was lacking from the first version (see the paragraph beginning at line 524).
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Thank you for this comment, we have discussed this further in the Discussion now (see lines 517-523)
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Thank you, we have changed the title to: Impact of changes in time left alone on separation-related behaviour in UK pet dogs
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
This is how it was phrased in the survey, so this has not been changed.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Thank you, this edit has been applied.
| 2 | 1 |
Lines 383-384: Change “dogs’ leaving routines” to “dogs’ time left alone”
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
It seemed unfeasible to expect a dog to never be left for even a minute or two, for example if the owner pops outside to take out the bin or to get something from the garage/shed etc.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 151: how was the criterion of “at least 5 minutes” chosen?
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
The wording given to the owners is all presented here, and in the supplementary material. No further definitions for behaviours or vocalisations were given. Pined, whined and cried were all mentioned, as all are words owner tend to use to describe similar dog vocalisations. As with all owner awareness of SRBs, it is fundamentally challenging unless they use recording equipment to view their dogs when they leave them or are otherwise able to view their dogs when alone such as by looking through a window. As this is a limitation of the method used, the appropriate place to mention this would be in the Discussion, not the Methods, so we have not discussed this limitation there.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
The wording of the question asked about the dog being left alone, without human company (see line 173), so it applied to anyone, and specifically meant when no-human was present in the house with the dog.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
This has now been explained, however this section has been moved entirely to the supplementary material on request of other reviewers.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 166: define “devolved nations” for readers unfamiliar with the term.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
Not strictly speaking, no. Dogs who were not left in February were excluded from the analysis. So, whilst there are 0 of them, that’s because of methodological choice not because there weren’t any dogs left alone. A note explaining this has been added to the figure legend.
| 2 | 1 |
Figure 2: should the blank box for “Feb, Not at all” be 0.0%?
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
There were issues in the figure referencing when we uploaded the manuscript to the submission system. This has now been corrected.
| 2 | 1 |
Figure 4 is not called out in the text of the Results section.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
For some reason I was convinced I’d read it was optional for longer discussions, but having double checked, you are indeed correct. Thank you. A brief conclusion section has now been added.
| 2 | 1 |
I believe Animals requires a Conclusions section.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
Thank you, we have corrected the typo.
| 2 | 1 |
Line 100: insert “the” after “in”
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
This has been corrected
| 2 | 1 |
Line 355: delete the first “the”
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
Thank you for your comments. The detail was provided to anchor the study in the background of what was occurring at the time, but we agree it is not necessary to the reader to see in the main text. These details and Figure 1 have been moved to the Supplementary material.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
We agree this was completely missed from the Discussion. It wasn’t intentional, we were just overly focussed on the results that related to the research hypothesis. Discussion around this has been added now to lines 524-544.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Agreed, we have altered this part of the simple summary and abstract and included discussion of this in lines 539-544 now as well as into the conclusions, thank you.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Leaving time has been changed throughout to ‘time left alone’ L33 10th instead of “10th” Thank you, we’ve corrected the typo.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Thank you for pointing this out. We define SRB in the opening lines of the Introduction (45-50), however you are right that in places the terms can get confusing. Section 3.7.3. details behaviours owners reported as associated with separation, that are not what class as SRBs. Those were names ‘other’ separation behaviour but this has now been clarified, hopefully, by remaining the section ‘Other’ separation-linked behaviour, and then in the text it is now stated they are not SRBs. The term ‘separation anxiety’ was used in the introduction where it referenced a study that used that specific term. This has now been put into quote marks to be clear it is their term, not ours. The one mention of separation-distress has also now been changed.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Thank you, we’ve corrected the typo.
| 2 | 1 |
L92 delete the comma after Bowen et al.’s.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
This has now been discussed further in lines 98-100.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
This has now been moved to the beginning of the methods section.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Agreed, this has been amended and condensed, thank you.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Thank you, this seemed ok until the manuscript was uploaded but we’ve corrected it now.
| 2 | 1 |
L131-132 and elsewhere: (Error! Reference source not found.) This error occurs 7 times in the text, please correct.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
We asked about the dogs’ management and behaviour over the previous 7 days so as to limit recall bias and anchor the data to a specific snapshot of time, rather than being more general. This was first asked for the first survey which was specifically looking at changes in management and behaviour during the strict lockdown period, so needed to be time specific. Questions were then repeated in the follow-up survey. Wording has been added to lines 165-169 now to clarify this.
| 2 | 1 |
L148 Please explain why a period of 7 days were asked to be reported
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
this has been done now.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Thank you for spotting this, we have updated both the methods (L243-247) and results section (L370-374) with further detail of inter-rater reliability checks.
| 2 | 1 |
L216-218 “The text was then coded by two researchers” I could not find agreement data reported later.
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
At the end of survey 1 there was the option for people to provide their demographic details, which not everyone did. This was done to conform to GDPR by asking only the most necessary questions. Given that the research question here is related to the dogs’ behaviour change over time versus leaving hours, it wasn’t deemed relevant to include analysis of the owner demographics.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
This has now been done.
| 2 | 1 |
L232-242 These sections should be moved to the Materials and Methods as a “Subjects” section
| 1 | 2 |
ani12040482_perova
| 1 |
For the purpose of this study it was required that we had baseline data on the dogs’ leaving behaviour so that we could classify them as SRB+ or – before the pandemic began. Owners of dogs who were not left alone in a typical week in February, were not asked about their dogs’ separation-related behaviour, so we did not have these data for them which is why they were excluded. New text has been added to the Subjects section of the methodology to explain how many owners answered the follow up questionnaire, the response rate and what percentage and number of dogs were not left home alone before the pandemic. The new section beginning at line 146 now reads: “A total of 2,425 people completed the follow-up survey for the same dog they scored in the original survey (a 51.9% response rate), of which 2,285 had previously provided data to indicate whether their dog was left alone or not in February 2020. Of these, 15.3% dogs (n=305) were not left alone at all in an average week in February, and as such, these dogs did not have baseline data for their behaviour when left so were excluded from further analysis.” Additionally, the number of people we emailed the invitation to (n=4,670) has been added to line 139.
| 2 | 1 |
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
| 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.