The Relationships among Microelement Composition of Reindeer Meat (Rangifer tarandus) and Adaptation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, according to my opinion the manuscript needs minor changes:

L 227-239 - there is no need again to explain aforementioned steps during meta-analysis

Conclusion - please rephrase

L 547-553 - there is no need for summarising afore mentioned general statement afore mentioned in the paper

L558-562 - it is not clear, please conclude "stronger"...directly and in short from your results...please reduce suggestions as "it can be"

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your attention to our manuscript “The Relationships among Microelement Composition of Reindeer Meat (Rangifer tarandus), Human Health Risks and Adaptation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis” and precious comments. We appreciate your useful and relevant comments which helped us to improve our text. We kept track changes functions in the text of the manuscript both to show our editing. Our answers to the Reviewers’ comments are presented below point-by-point in bold.

 Reviewer’s comment:

L 227-239 – there is no need again to explain aforementioned steps during meta-analysis.

Authors’ answer:

Modified, see lines 436-442.

 

Reviewer’s comment:

Conclusion – please rephrase

L 547-553 – there is no need for summarising afore mentioned general statement afore mentioned in the paper

L558-562 – it is not clear, please conclude "stronger"...directly and in short from your results...please reduce suggestions as "it can be"

Authors’ answer:

We have clarified and specified our idea, see lines 1183-1202.

 

Sincerely,

Elena Bogdanova (corresponding author)

Department of Economics and Management,

Northern Arctic Federal University,

Arkhangelsk, Russia

Reviewer 2 Report

sustainability-1557694

“The Relationships among Microelement Composition of Reindeer Meat (Rangifer tarandus), Human Health Risks and Adaptation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”

Dear Authors,

The study is very interesting and it contributes significantly to the knowledge of the field. However there are some suggestions as follows:

Line 51-52. The sentence “The world's largest livestock of domesticated reindeer in Russia” should be “The world's largest livestock of domesticated reindeer is in Russia”

Line 83-84. Please change the sentence “The most crucial macronutrients are potassium (K), sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), phosphorus (P), etc., which activate enzymes” by “The most crucial macronutrients are potassium (K), sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), phosphorus (P), among others, which activate enzymes”.

Line 84-85. Please add the word “and” in the sentence “promote muscle and nervous activity and therefore…”

Regarding the Tables, I would suggest to join Table 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 in one single Heterogeneity analysis Table. Likewise, to join Table 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 in one single Publication Bias Table.

Line 496-497. Please add the word “and” in the sentence “contribute to enriching reindeer meat with manganese, silicon, and iron”.

Line 529-530. The sentence “They recommend eating venison for diseases such as.” Seems to be incomplete. Please do correct it.

Line 540-541. The sentence “The meta-analysis included elements and animals and had a wide geographical coverage, which makes the results more reliable.” Is not very clear. Could you please re-write it?.

Line 97-98. The objective of the study has a second ain which is “analyse the effects of venison consumption on human health and adaptation in the Arctic”. However this aspect was not analysed deeply. Only scarce information was given about human health related to venison consumption. Therefore, I would suggest to remove the mentioned aim from the general objective of the study.

In my opinion the title of the review should be only “Microelement Composition of Reindeer Meat (Rangifer tarandus): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your attention to our manuscript “The Relationships among Microelement Composition of Reindeer Meat (Rangifer tarandus), Human Health Risks and Adaptation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis” and precious comments. We appreciate your useful and relevant comments which helped us to improve our text. We kept track changes functions in the text of the manuscript both to show our editing. Our answers to the Reviewers’ comments are presented below point-by-point in bold.

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 51-52. The sentence “The world's largest livestock of domesticated reindeer in Russia” should be “The world's largest livestock of domesticated reindeer is in Russia”

Authors’ answer:

Thank you for your kind advice. Modified, see lines 75–76.

 

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 83-84. Please change the sentence “The most crucial macronutrients are potassium (K), sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), phosphorus (P), etc., which activate enzymes” by “The most crucial macronutrients are potassium (K), sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), phosphorus (P), among others, which activate enzymes”.

Authors’ answer:

Modified, see lines 107–109.

 

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 84-85. Please add the word “and” in the sentence “promote muscle and nervous activity and therefore…”

Authors’ answer:

Modified, see line 110.

 

Reviewer’s comment:

Regarding the Tables, I would suggest to join Table 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 in one single Heterogeneity analysis Table. Likewise, to join Table 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 15 in one single Publication Bias Table.

Authors’ answer:

We appreciate your advice. Modified, see tables 2–3.

 

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 496-497. Please add the word “and” in the sentence “contribute to enriching reindeer meat with manganese, silicon, and iron”.

Authors’ answer:

Modified, see line 1070.

 

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 529-530. The sentence “They recommend eating venison for diseases such as.” Seems to be incomplete. Please do correct it.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you. The sentence was deleted because it repeats the text.

 

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 540-541. The sentence “The meta-analysis included elements and animals and had a wide geographical coverage, which makes the results more reliable.” Is not very clear. Could you please re-write it?

Authors’ answer:

The sentence was re-written (line 1117).

 

Reviewer’s comment:

Line 97-98. The objective of the study has a second aim which is “analyse the effects of venison consumption on human health and adaptation in the Arctic”. However this aspect was not analysed deeply. Only scarce information was given about human health related to venison consumption. Therefore, I would suggest to remove the mentioned aim from the general objective of the study.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you for your recommendation. We agree with your opinion. The second aim was deleted, see lines 21–22, 199–200.

 

Reviewer’s comment:

In my opinion the title of the review should be only “Microelement Composition of Reindeer Meat (Rangifer tarandus): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”.

Authors’ answer:

We appreciate your precious comment and your opinion. We agree that we only mentioned possible influence of venison consumption on human health and reducing human health risks in the Discussion. However, the idea of our study was to highlight the relationship and positive impact of reindeer meat consumption on adaptation in the Arctic. Therefore, this key word is very important for us, and we would kindly ask you to accept it in the title of our manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

Elena Bogdanova (corresponding author)

Department of Economics and Management,

Northern Arctic Federal University,

Arkhangelsk, Russia

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you to have performed the suggested corrections on your manuscript.
In my opinion no further changes are needed.