Exploring the Impact of Selenium Nanoparticles on Growth and Gonadal Development in Asian Seabass (Lates calcarifer): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on the revised manuscript with ID (aquacj-3692669-peer-review-v1). Although the authors appropriately responded to the comments raised by the anonymous reviewer; however, there are still other comments that should be considered.
Q1. The focus of the manuscript is the effects of SeNPs on the growth and gonadal development in Asian Seabass (Lates calcarifer); thus, there is no need to cite references on other fish species. Even with limited availability of research specifically focused on Asian seabass, you should not add references on other fish species. In the abstract and the conclusions, you should also write sentences on Asian seabass only.
Q2. I found that 7 highlights are too many according to the journal guidelines.
Q3. You should abbreviate the Latin name of Asian Seabass, Lates calcarifer after its first appearance in the text.
Q4. You should abbreviate selenium nanoparticles as SeNPs after their first appearance in the text.
Q5. I suggest dividing section “Effect of Selenium Nanoparticles on Biological Systems and Their Physicochemical Properties” into two sections.
Q6. In the title of Table 1, you added the effects on Asian seabass. In the table, you added data on the European seabass. This is incorrect.
Q7. In Table 2, the authors have the responsibility to revise the references. These references should be focused on Asian seabass only.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Reviewer- 1

Q1. The focus of the manuscript is the effects of SeNPs on the growth and gonadal development in Asian Seabass (Lates calcarifer); thus, there is no need to cite references on other fish species. Even with limited availability of research specifically focused on Asian seabass, you should not add references on other fish species. In the abstract and the conclusions, you should also write sentences on Asian seabass only.

 

Author response

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comment. We would like to clarify that both the abstract and conclusion strictly focus on Asian seabass (Lates calcarifer) only. No other species have been mentioned in these sections, in alignment with the main objective of our study. Additionally, Sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the manuscript present a meta-analysis based solely on data from studies conducted on L. calcarifer. However, in a few instances, we briefly referred to findings from other fish species for contextual or technical comparison purposes—only to help interpret or support trends observed in our meta-analysis results. These references were not central to the discussion and have been carefully used to strengthen the scientific interpretation. Nevertheless, we understand the importance of maintaining species-specific focus, and we have rechecked the relevant sections to ensure that the emphasis remains clearly on Asian seabass throughout the manuscript.

Q2. I found that 7 highlights are too many according to the journal guidelines.

Author response

Thank you for pointing out this issue. In accordance with the journal’s guideline and your kind suggestion, we have carefully reduced the number of highlights from seven to four. We selected the four most critical findings that best reflect the objective and outcomes of our study, specifically focusing on the significant improvements in growth and reproductive performance of L. calcarifer due to SeNPs supplementation. The revised highlights now capture key results in a more concise and impactful manner and are structured to reflect clarity and relevance for a broader readership. The changes have been implemented in the Highlights section (Page 1 & 2).

 

Q3. You should abbreviate the Latin name of Asian Seabass, Lates calcarifer after its first appearance in the text.

Author response

We thank the reviewer for this helpful editorial suggestion. As advised, we have standardized the Latin name by using the full binomial (Lates calcarifer) only at its first appearance in both the abstract and introduction. Thereafter, we have used the correct abbreviation (L. calcarifer) throughout the entire manuscript in compliance with taxonomic convention and journal style. This correction improves the manuscript's scientific presentation and avoids unnecessary repetition. The abbreviation adjustment can be found starting from the Introduction (Page 2) onward.

Q4. You should abbreviate selenium nanoparticles as SeNPs after their first appearance in the text.

Author response

Thank you for your observation. We have carefully revised the manuscript to ensure that the term "selenium nanoparticles" is written in full upon its first mention in both the abstract and main text. After that, the abbreviation “SeNPs” has been consistently used throughout the document. This revision aligns with scientific writing best practices and enhances the readability of the manuscript. These edits were made beginning from the Abstract (Page 1) and consistently applied throughout Sections 1 to 4 (Pages 3–20).

 

 

 

Q5. I suggest dividing section “Effect of Selenium Nanoparticles on Biological Systems and Their Physicochemical Properties” into two sections.

Author response

We greatly appreciate your constructive suggestion regarding manuscript structure. Based on your recommendation, we have separated the previously combined section into two distinct and clearly labeled sections:

• 1. Physicochemical Properties and Characterization of Selenium Nanoparticles
• 2. Effects of Selenium Nanoparticles on Biological Systems

This division allows for a more logical flow of information and ensures that the discussion of the nanoparticle properties does not overshadow the biological effects. The structural change improves the manuscript’s readability and clarity. These revisions have been implemented on Pages 6 & 7, with corresponding adjustments in the table of contents and section numbering.

 

Q6. In the title of Table 1, you added the effects on Asian seabass. In the table, you added data on the European seabass. This is incorrect.

Author response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable observation, which we wholeheartedly welcome. Based on your suggestion, we carefully revisited Table 1 and identified the unintentional inclusion of data related to European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), which indeed diverged from the core species focus of our manuscript. In full alignment with your recommendation and the manuscript’s objective, we have completely removed all data pertaining to European seabass from Table 1. As a result of this correction, we also needed to revise Figure 3, which summarizes the growth performance meta-analysis, because the earlier effect size calculations had partially incorporated non L. calcarifer data. We updated the forest plot (Figure 3 and 4) using only the revised studies focusing exclusively on Asian seabass. In parallel, Supplementary Table 2 (formerly based on the broader dataset) has also been corrected accordingly to reflect the appropriate effect sizes and study weights. Furthermore, because this change affected not just the table and figure but also related textual interpretation, we made substantial revisions to Section 3.3 (Effect of Selenium Nanoparticles on the Growth Performance of Asian Seabass). The updated section now fully reflects Asian seabass-specific findings and references. These changes have been clearly highlighted in yellow in the manuscript (Pages 7–11) for transparency and ease of review. Lastly, to ensure consistency throughout the manuscript, we also revised a few relevant sentences in the Abstract (Page 1) to eliminate any broad references and focus exclusively on L. calcarifer. These updates have also been highlighted in yellow. We are grateful for your guidance, which significantly enhanced the scientific accuracy and focus of our manuscript.

Q7. In Table 2, the authors have the responsibility to revise the references. These references should be focused on Asian seabass only.

Author response

We are very grateful to the reviewer for pointing out this important issue, and we respectfully acknowledge and welcome your decision. Based on your recommendation, we have conducted a thorough review of Table 2 and found that references and data concerning European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) had been mistakenly included. In response, we have completely removed all such entries, ensuring that the table now includes data and references exclusively related to Asian seabass (L. calcarifer), in alignment with the manuscript's focus. In addition, as per your recommendation, we have updated and enriched Table 2 by adding a newly published study by Khorasaninasab et al., 2025, which presents recent and robust data on the reproductive effects of SeNPs in L. calcarifer. This inclusion significantly strengthens the evidence base related to Asian seabass and enhances the scientific value of the manuscript. Accordingly, the reference number 63 has also been updated and altered to reflect this newly added study. Due to the corrections in Table 2, we also had to revise the associated meta-analysis figure (Figure 5), which visualizes effect sizes for reproductive parameters. The new figure now reflects only studies on L. calcarifer and includes the updated values from the new reference. Additionally, Supplementary Table 3, which contains the data used for the reproductive meta-analysis, has been updated accordingly to maintain internal consistency. These modifications necessitated significant revision of Section 3.4 (Pages 11–15), particularly in the interpretation of reproductive outcomes, gene expression, and hormonal data. All changes in this section have been clearly highlighted in yellow for transparency. As a result of the updated studies and data structure, we also revisited and revised Section 3.5: Risk of Bias Assessment (Page 15). Because the included study pool changed (with the removal of European seabass references and the addition of a new Asian seabass study), the risk of bias scoring had to be recalculated, leading to revisions in both the narrative description and the graphical representation in Figure 6. The updated risk of bias plot and text now reflect the revised study pool and adjusted assessments across all bias domains. We believe that these updates have significantly improved the scientific integrity, focus, and coherence of the manuscript and are deeply thankful for your constructive feedback that led to these valuable enhancements.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is substantially revised from its previous version and I find that authors have addressed all the queries raised during the previous review. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Reviewer- 2

The manuscript is substantially revised from its previous version and I find that authors have addressed all the queries raised during the previous review.  

Author response

Thank you very much for your positive feedback. We are pleased to hear that you found the literature review well-written and the article selection methods clear. We appreciate your supportive comments and are glad that you have no major concerns with the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accepted in the present form

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Okay

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

 

Reviewer- 3

 

Accepted in the present form.

 

Author response

We sincerely thank for the positive evaluation and acceptance of our manuscript in its current form. We are truly grateful for your time, careful review, and constructive feedback, which helped us refine and strengthen the quality of this work. Your support is highly appreciated..

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review provides interesting insights into a topic that has important economic impacts in the aquaculture sector. However, the manuscript in its current forms requires substantial revisions to improve the quality of the presentation of results. The main shortcomings, in my opinion, concern the quality of the English used. Misleading sentences are present throughout the text (e.g. line 51-53; line 85-94), so an extensive revision is suggested. In addition, some of the proposed keywords have already been used for the title. The name of the species (Lates calcarifer) should always be written in italics, I strongly suggest that the authors recheck the entire manuscript. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A careful and thorough review of English used is recommended.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Reviewer- 4

This review provides interesting insights into a topic that has important economic impacts in the aquaculture sector. However, the manuscript in its current forms requires substantial revisions to improve the quality of the presentation of results. The main shortcomings, in my opinion, concern the quality of the English used. Misleading sentences are present throughout the text (e.g. line 51-53; line 85-94), so an extensive revision is suggested. In addition, some of the proposed keywords have already been used for the title. The name of the species (Lates calcarifer) should always be written in italics, I strongly suggest that the authors recheck the entire manuscript.

Author response:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully revised the manuscript for clarity, grammar, and scientific tone. In particular, we improved the problematic passages on lines 51–53 and 85–94 to remove ambiguity and enhance readability. A thorough language check has been applied throughout the entire manuscript.

The keywords have been revised to avoid redundancy with the title. The new keywords are:
reproductive enhancement, fish feed additives, aquaculture sustainability

We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and corrected all instances of Lates calcarifer to ensure it is consistently italicized, following proper scientific nomenclature.

A careful and thorough review of English used is recommended.

Author response:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have thoroughly reviewed the entire manuscript multiple times, with a strong emphasis on enhancing clarity, grammar, and overall language quality. We are now confident that the revised version meets the journal’s standards for academic English and clearly and effectively communicates our findings.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this is a very well written literature review and the methods for selection of articles was clear in my opinion. I have no major concerns with this manuscript.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Reviewer- 1

I think this is a very well written literature review and the methods for selection of articles was clear in my opinion. I have no major concerns with this manuscript.

Author response

Thank you very much for your positive feedback. We are pleased to hear that you found the literature review well-written and the article selection methods clear. We appreciate your supportive comments and are glad that you have no major concerns with the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have 4 main concerns about this manuscript (aquacj-3585816-peer-review-v1)
1.    The manuscript, in general, was focused on Asian seabass (Lates calcarifer). I do not know why the authors add data published on European Seabass (Di-centrarchus labrax). 
2.    The manuscript was designed to be a systematic review and meta-analysis about the impacts of SeNPs on growth and gonadal development in Asian Seabass (Lates calcarifer). If the authors go through the whole manuscript, they will find that there are data regarding physiological and biochemical Roles, oxidative stress biomarkers, and molecular insights.
3.    Besides, there are several paragraphs on properties and biological effects of SeNPs, potential risks and limitations in Aquaculture and human health implications. All these titles are not related to the main subject of your review paper.
4.    The NCBI GenBank accession number (XM_035655954.1) was designed for Morone saxatilis and not fit for Asian seabass.
According to the aforementioned points, I advise against the publication of this manuscript. This manuscript needs a lot of work to have a new presentation. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

Reviewer- 2

    The manuscript, in general, was focused on Asian seabass (Lates calcarifer). I do not know why the authors add data published on European Seabass (Di-centrarchus labrax). 

 

Author response

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation and acknowledge that the European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) and the Asian seabass (Lates calcarifer) are distinct species, differing in their distribution, habitat, and culture systems. However, due to the limited availability of research specifically focused on Selenium Nanoparticles (SeNPs) in L. calcarifer, we included relevant findings from studies on D. labrax to provide broader context and comparative insights. This inclusion was intended to enrich the discussion and highlight potential similarities or differences in response to SeNPs across related species. It has been included under Section 3.2 on page 9 of the revised manuscript, highlighted in yellow.

 

2.    The manuscript was designed to be a systematic review and meta-analysis about the impacts of SeNPs on growth and gonadal development in Asian Seabass (Lates calcarifer). If the authors go through the whole manuscript, they will find that there are data regarding physiological and biochemical Roles, oxidative stress biomarkers, and molecular insights.
3.    Besides, there are several paragraphs on properties and biological effects of SeNPs, potential risks and limitations in Aquaculture and human health implications. All these titles are not related to the main subject of your review paper.
4.    The NCBI GenBank accession number (XM_035655954.1) was designed for Morone saxatilis and not fit for Asian seabass.

Author response   

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the insightful comments, and we fully agree with the concerns raised. Accordingly, the unrelated sections—such as those addressing the physiological and biochemical roles of SeNPs, oxidative stress biomarkers, molecular insights, as well as the human health implications, including the NCBI GenBank accession number (XM_035655954.1)—have been removed from the revised manuscript to maintain a focused scope.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The MS "Exploring the Impact of Selenium Nanoparticles on Growth  
and Gonadal Development in Asian Seabass (Lates calcarifer): 
A systematic review and meta-analysis" is a review which discusses role of Selenium nanoparticles in advancing sustainable aquaculture through improved fish health, productivity, and reproductive performance of Asian Seabass.

Remove the gap between line 23 and line 24.

There are several words in the Introduction section which is bold. I don't understand that why author made several words bold which is not a customary requirement for any review article. 

Methods employed for systematic review is nicely curated. 

Why authors have chosen to compare in (Figure 2. Characteristics of selenium nanoparticles for various aquaculture species ). This review is a specific about Asian Seabass why authors are complicating the review. 

Again authors are deviating from their viewpoint in Table 1. Physiological and Biochemical Roles of Selenium Nanoparticles in Fish. Author needs to either change the Asian Seabass in the title or should modify the title. 

I am not convinced with the authors viewpoint in result and discussion section. To me it neither looks like a review article nor it is meeting the requirement of research article. This systematic review is largely deviating from its viewpoint. 

Author needs to change their approach to reshuffle the viewpoint and rearrangements of the entire article. There is no meaning of having results and discussion where they are just giving few tables which is largely misleading their article. Authors needs to strict their approach to just project the things which they are projecting in methods section. Rest of the parts are just to increase the no. of words and pages in the manuscript. 

Figure 1 should be placed in method section instead of putting them in results and discussion section. Since this methodology is the base of this systematic review. 

The conclusion section overly stated and i am not finding anything in this section which summarizes this article in this section. Authors need to rewrite this section and make it shorter and influential. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

 

Reviewer- 3

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. 1. The MS "Exploring the Impact of Selenium Nanoparticles on Growth  
   and Gonadal Development in Asian Seabass (Lates calcarifer): A systematic review and meta-analysis" is a review which discusses role of Selenium nanoparticles in advancing sustainable aquaculture through improved fish health, productivity, and reproductive performance of Asian Seabass.

 

Author response

Thank you for highlighting the key insights of our manuscript. In the revised version, we have focused more clearly on the impact of Selenium Nanoparticles on growth and gonadal development in Asian seabass (Lates calcarifer), ensuring a more concise and targeted message throughout the manuscript. It has been included in Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the revised manuscript, highlighted in yellow.

 

2. Remove the gap between line 23 and line 24.

 

Author response

We have removed the unnecessary gap between line 23 and line 24 to maintain proper formatting and ensure the document's continuity. The revised manuscript has been updated accordingly (marked yellow in the abstract section).

 

 

3. There are several words in the Introduction section which is bold. I don't understand that why author made several words bold which is not a customary requirement for any review article. 

 

Author response

Thank you for pointing out this issue. We have carefully reviewed the Introduction section and removed all unnecessary bold formatting (marked as yellow shading) to ensure a professional and consistent presentation throughout the manuscript.

 

4. Methods employed for systematic review is nicely curated. 

Author response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the encouraging feedback on our methodology.

 

 

5. Again authors are deviating from their viewpoint in Table 1. Physiological and Biochemical Roles of Selenium Nanoparticles in Fish. Author needs to either change the Asian Seabass in the title or should modify the title. 

Author response

Thank you for pointing out this issue. The manuscript now focuses more clearly on the impact of Selenium Nanoparticles on growth and gonadal development in Asian seabass (Lates calcarifer), ensuring a more concise and targeted message. The table has been removed, and necessary revisions have been made to enhance the clarity of the manuscript. The matter revised under section 3.2 of page 12 marked in yellow.

 

6. I am not convinced with the authors viewpoint in result and discussion section. To me it neither looks like a review article nor it is meeting the requirement of research article. This systematic review is largely deviating from its viewpoint. 

Author response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and critical feedback. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and made revisions to ensure better alignment with the intended viewpoint, both structurally and contextually. Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has greatly helped in improving the manuscript.

 

 

7. Author needs to change their approach to reshuffle the viewpoint and rearrangements of the entire article. There is no meaning of having results and discussion where they are just giving few tables which is largely misleading their article. Authors needs to strict their approach to just project the things which they are projecting in methods section. Rest of the parts are just to increase the no. of words and pages in the manuscript.

Author response

Thank you for your insightful comments and feedback. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and made revisions to ensure a more coherent presentation, both structurally and contextually, in line with the methods section. Your feedback has been invaluable in helping us improve the manuscript. Revision is been made as yellow shading the revised manuscript (section 1, 2 & 3)

 

 

8. Figure 1 should be placed in method section instead of putting them in results and discussion section. Since this methodology is the base of this systematic review. 

Author response

Thank you for your valuable comment. The figure has now been moved to the methodology section, as it aligns with the requirements of the systematic review. Figure 1 has now been changed to Figure 2, located on page 5 under the Methodology section and marked with yellow shading.

 

9. The conclusion section overly stated and i am not finding anything in this section which summarizes this article in this section. Authors need to rewrite this section and make it shorter and influential. 

Author response

Thank you for this feedback. We have reviewed and revised the conclusion to make it more concise and impactful. The revised conclusion now better summarizes the article. The revision has been marked with yellow shading in the Conclusion section on pages 18–19 of the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is very long and repeated and going to be chapter -like in textbook

What is/are the creativity of this work—just an ordinary study

Conclusions are  more than enough

There is no ethical approval statement

There are no recommendations

There is no simple summary as all MDPI journals

Abstract

There are no highlights—why? Should be and stated after the abstract not before  

The graphical abstracts should be after the abstract not before

Tabulate all abbreviations

LN/12—describe in Detail

LN/16—PRISMA approach—detailed then abbreviate—what about its role in aquaculture industry

Abstract is very long

Abstract should be divided into backgrounds/aims/methods /results and conclusion

Huge number of abbreviations were used—tabulate all

LN/33-34—add meta-analysis/fish nutrition/nanotechnology/antioxidants to the keywords

Introduction

LN/39—highly prized—how

LN/40/46/53/59---add references

Why some data written with bold styles should be

LN/55—accumulated to toxic levels—mention these levels

What about the standard permissible limits of selenium as general in water/food/tissues and soil recorded by FAO/WHO/EPA (in table )

LN/62—describe how  

Introduction is very long –why ---should be more concise  

Aims should be more clarified

Novelty needs to be more highlighted

Methods

LN/90-95---add reference

The most descriptive methodologies are without references

What about the statistical analysis

There is no plan for the study area

What about the ethical approval statement

Methods are not well-organized

Results and discussion

Results should be separated from the discussion and be more concise

What about the toxic effects of SeNPs in fish as general

Are there any behavioral abnormalities due to the misuse of these particles

What about the PM changes as well as the pathological alterations

Are there any mortalities percentages or not

How can we be sure that these particles are safe for humans and fish

LN/164-170—repeated

LN/176—what about the qualitative

Is there any relationship between selenium and heavy metals

What about the role of environmental pollution with selenium in tissues accumulation

Discussion is extremely very long

You should discuss your obtained results with the other investigators’ results

Rewrite it again and be more concise  

 

Conclusion

More than enough—rewrite it again  

References

Some cited references need to be more update

Huge number of references were used( 121)—why

Ref(2)—delete vol/no/p—write as 564(1):012011—etc---apply for all

Some cited references with missing data

Ref(4)---delete (online )

Ref(13/106/109—etc ) we do not add etal with references , unless the total authors exceed than 6 , hence we add etal with the last ones—apply for all

Some cited references contained more than 6 authors—why –should be 6 at the maximum plus etal with the last ones—apply for all

There are no gross figures or images

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Okay

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

 

Reviewer- 4

It is very long and repeated and going to be chapter -like in textbook

What is/are the creativity of this work—just an ordinary study

Conclusions are more than enough

There is no ethical approval statement

There are no recommendations

There is no simple summary as all MDPI journals

Author response:

Thank you for your valuable comments. The manuscript has been shortened and revised accordingly. This is a significant study on growth and gonadal development in aquaculture. The conclusion has been revised to be more concise. The ethical approval statement has been added. Recommendations and implications are now included at the end of both the abstract and conclusion of the revised manuscript. Revisions have been made in the Abstract (page 1), Methodology (page 6), Institutional Review Board Statement (page 19), and Conclusion (page 19), all of which are marked with yellow shading.

 

Abstract

There are no highlights—why? Should be and stated after the abstract not before  

The graphical abstracts should be after the abstract not before

Tabulate all abbreviations

LN/12—describe in Detail

LN/16—PRISMA approach—detailed then abbreviate—what about its role in aquaculture industry

Abstract is very long

Abstract should be divided into backgrounds/aims/methods /results and conclusion

Huge number of abbreviations were used—tabulate all

LN/33-34—add meta-analysis/fish nutrition/nanotechnology/antioxidants to the keywords

 

Author response:

Thank you for your insightful comments. The highlights have been included, and the graphical abstract is now placed after the abstract (page 2), as requested. All abbreviations have been tabulated appropriately (page 20). The PRISMA approach is now detailed, and its role in the aquaculture industry has been clarified (page 5 of section 2.1). The abstract has been revised to be concise and comprehensive, with clear sections for background, aims, methods, results, and conclusion (page 1). The keywords have been updated to include 'meta-analysis', 'fish nutrition', 'nanotechnology', and 'antioxidants' (page 1).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

LN/39—highly prized—how

LN/40/46/53/59---add references

Why some data written with bold styles should be

LN/55—accumulated to toxic levels—mention these levels

What about the standard permissible limits of selenium as general in water/food/tissues and soil recorded by FAO/WHO/EPA (in table)

LN/62—describe how  

Introduction is very long –why ---should be more concise  

Aims should be more clarified

Novelty needs to be more highlighted

Author response:

Thank you for the valuable comments. We have clarified that Asian seabass is highly prized for its rapid growth, salinity tolerance, and strong consumer demand (Line 55 of introduction). Relevant reference have been added at line 60 to support key statements of the revised manuscript. The bold font style previously used for some data has been corrected to normal for consistency (in introduction as yellow shading). Regarding selenium toxicity, we specified that accumulation above 2.50 mg/kg is considered toxic based on freshwater fish studies, and included a table summarizing standard permissible selenium limits in water, food, tissues, and soil as reported by FAO, WHO, and EPA (in Line 424 under section 3.5 of the revised manuscript which marked as yellow shading). We further described the mechanisms by which selenium nanoparticles enhance bioavailability, antioxidant defense, and reproductive performance. The introduction has been made more concise, the aims clarified, and the novelty emphasized by highlighting this study’s systematic review and meta-analysis approach to provide comprehensive insights on selenium nanoparticles’ effects for sustainable aquaculture (Page 2, line 53-85). We believe these revisions have substantially improved the manuscript.

 

Methods

LN/90-95---add reference

The most descriptive methodologies are without references

What about the statistical analysis

There is no plan for the study area

What about the ethical approval statement

Methods are not well-organized

Author response:

Thank you for the constructive feedback on the Methods section. We have added appropriate reference at lines 88–06 (of the revised manuscript) to support the methodologies described, ensuring all key methods are properly cited. The statistical analysis procedures have now been clearly detailed, including the models and software used for meta-analysis and heterogeneity assessment (section 2, Line 87-172 of the revised manuscript) . Since this is a systematic review and meta-analysis based entirely on previously published data, no new field study was conducted, and therefore, no study area plan was applicable; this clarification has been included. Additionally, we have added an ethical approval statement clarifying that ethical approval was not required as no new animal or human subjects were involved (Line 132-141) and also in line 501-506. The Methods section has been reorganized for better flow and clarity to improve readability and coherence. We believe these revisions comprehensively address the concerns raised.

Results and discussion

Results should be separated from the discussion and be more concise

What about the toxic effects of SeNPs in fish as general

Are there any behavioral abnormalities due to the misuse of these particles

What about the PM changes as well as the pathological alterations

Are there any mortalities percentages or not

How can we be sure that these particles are safe for humans and fish

LN/164-170—repeated

LN/176—what about the qualitative

Is there any relationship between selenium and heavy metals

What about the role of environmental pollution with selenium in tissues accumulation

Discussion is extremely very long

You should discuss your obtained results with the other investigators’ results

Rewrite it again and be more concise  

Author response:

Thank you for the valuable comments. In the revised manuscript, we have separated the Results and Discussion sections to enhance clarity and made the Results more concise by focusing on key findings supported by meta-analyses (Line 174-457 of the revised manuscript). We have included a dedicated discussion on the potential toxic effects of selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs), highlighting dose-dependent risks such as behavioral abnormalities, histopathological changes, and mortality, supported by relevant literature. The Discussion has been substantially rewritten to compare our results with other investigators and avoid redundancy, providing a balanced and focused analysis of SeNP benefits and risks for fish health and human safety. These revisions comprehensively address the reviewers’ concerns while improving the manuscript’s scientific rigor and readability.

 

 

 

Conclusion

More than enough—rewrite it again  

Author response:

Thank you for your valuable comment. We have revised the conclusion to make it more concise and focused, highlighting the key findings and their implications clearly without unnecessary detail (in line 474-477). The updated conclusion now effectively summarizes the main outcomes of the study, emphasizing the positive effects of selenium nanoparticles on growth and reproductive performance in Asian seabass, while also acknowledging the importance of cautious dosing to avoid potential toxicity (line 467-470). This revision ensures a balanced and impactful closing to the manuscript.

 

 

 

References

Some cited references need to be more update

Huge number of references were used (121)—why

Ref(2)—delete vol/no/p—write as 564(1):012011—etc---apply for all

Some cited references with missing data

Ref(4)---delete (online )

Ref(13/106/109—etc ) we do not add et al with references , unless the total authors exceed than 6 , hence we add et al with the last ones—apply for all

Some cited references contained more than 6 authors—why –should be 6 at the maximum plus et al with the last ones—apply for all

There are no gross figures or images

Author response:  

Thank you for the valuable feedback. We have carefully reviewed and updated all references to ensure accuracy and consistency with the journal’s formatting guidelines. This includes correcting citation details, applying “et al.” for references with more than six authors, removing unnecessary information, and updating outdated citations. We have also reduced the total number of references to include only the most relevant and recent works. These revisions enhance the overall quality and clarity of the reference list (Line 512-708 of the revised manuscript).   

Author Response File: Author Response.docx