People and Zoos: The Role and Implementation of Direct Human–Animal Interactions in Zoological Establishments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present manuscript reviewed the role and implementation of direct human-animal interactions in zoological establishments. Overall, the topic is significant, and it fits the scope of the journal. Following are some comments on this manuscript.

 

L131-133: How did the authors reduce the papers from 150 to 70? Details should be provided in the text.

 

L160: This paragraph is a bit independent, and it is not very close to the main topic of this manuscript. It may be combined to the first paragraph.

 

L346-349: Although the authors indicated that the study presented by Olivares et al. had limited sample size, the interactive activities in that study were not introduced properly. The frequency and length of ridden experiences might cause different effects on the elephants. This should be better discussed.

 

L303: The training of animals is currently being more and more important in zoological establishments. It is indeed a direct human-animal interaction. It serves crucial purposes far beyond entertainment. It also focuses on the animal welfare, veterinary care, conservation, researches, and education. The authors should expand the length of this paragraph and highlight the key points of animal training.

 

L493: In section 5, the authors should better conclude the key findings of this review, and give more practical suggestions for the zoological establishments in developing countries with less financial resources.

Author Response

Amended as per guidance. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review paper provides a valuable overview of current challenges and opportunities in the context of human-animal interactions within zoological institutions. The authors attempt to strike a balance between the potential benefits for human visitors and the welfare challenges faced by animals in captivity, thereby creating space for discussion about the modern role of zoos—not only as places of recreation but also as centers of education, research, and conservation.

Despite the paper’s clear strengths, such as its comprehensive approach to the topic, its emphasis on legal inconsistencies and practices, its call for further research, and its recognition of the multifaceted role of modern zoos, there are certain weaknesses that should be addressed to improve the paper:

The findings (results) throughout the paper tend to be more descriptive than analytical. There is a lack of quantitative support for many of the claims made. To enhance clarity and readability, the use of tables is recommended. The only table included in the paper, which presents welfare standards and risk classifications, appears unclear. For example, is there a difference in risk—low risk or high risk—for existing businesses that fail to meet minimum standards?

Although the paper highlights animal welfare, it devotes less attention to ethical issues related to the instrumentalization of animals for entertainment and profit, which would be particularly relevant in the context of the growing public debate about the role of zoos.

Additionally, due to some stylistic ambiguities, a language and grammar review is recommended. It is also advisable to include the term systematic review in the paper's title, as this is common practice to indicate the type of publication.

 

Author Response

amended as per guidance, than you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title “Training of Human and Non-Human Animals” is particularly concerning - the phrasing suggests an equivalence between humans and animals in the context of training.

Instead of presenting a separate summary and limitations section, it would be more effective to integrate these elements into a cohesive and well-structured conclusion. A stronger concluding section could reinforce the key findings, acknowledge relevant limitations, and offer a clear direction for future research.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria are vaguely defined and lack operational clarity. A more detailed specification of the selection parameters and search strategy is needed to improve methodological transparency and strengthen the overall rigor of the review.

Some abbreviations are missing explanations, while others are not defined at their first appearance in the text but only later, which may confuse the reader.

The final sentence of the introduction (lines 79–85) is particularly unclear, and it is not evident what the author intends to convey. Clarification and revision are strongly recommended to improve readability and understanding.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Enhancement of linguistic style and grammatical precision is recommended to improve the overall clarity and readability of the text. Also, the writing would benefit from more precise terminology and clearer sentence structure, especially when describing aims and methodology.

Author Response

Amended as per guidance, thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx