Peer Review History
Original SubmissionSeptember 27, 2023 |
---|
PGPH-D-23-01910 Drivers of inappropriate use of antimicrobials in South Asia: A systematic review of qualitative literature PLOS Global Public Health Dear Dr. Jennifer L Murray, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. One of the reviewers suggested that the review would have benefited from using a scoping review approach compared to a systematic review. Provide a rationale why this was the best approach or consider suggesting the lack of grey literature as a limitation. Please submit your revised manuscript by 01/07/2024. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ferdinand Mukumbang, PhD Academic Editor PLOS Global Public Health Journal Requirements: 1. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format only and remove any figures embedded in your manuscript file. Please also ensure all files are under our size limit of 10MB. For more information about figure files please see our guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/s/figures#loc-file-requirement 2. We have noticed that you have uploaded Supporting Information files, but you have not included a list of legends. Please add a full list of legends for your Supporting Information files after the references list. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I don't know Reviewer #2: N/A ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I want to thank the authors for writing a review on this hidden pandemic (AMR) in South Asia. Abstracts: Conclusion is missing. Also, consider using a structured format for abstract writing in this scenario. Introduction Well written Methods -Instead of overview, I suggest authors say overview and study criteria -You mention only articles published in English were included, and is that not a bias? -What was the review period? Who did the data search, when, how were full articles accessed if not open access, and why were only two databases searched? -How were mixed-method studies handled? -Critical appraisal should come after data extraction and how was consensus done for discrepancies? -The quality check stage is missing from the PRISMA table -Table 3: I recommend a column added stating main findings of the studies included in the final review Results a. Included studies -Can authors explain what happened at each stage of the PRISMA table and why? Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I want to commend the authors for taking on this important topic. However, I have some comments and questions: 1. In my opinion, the topic can benefit from a scoping or narrative review instead of systematic review. 2. Inclusion of grey literature such as government reports can be beneficial as they may also contain some valuable information. 3. The rationale regarding what this research adds to the knowledge is not clear. Other than the setting, the findings may not be new and already known. Other studies in LMICs have found similar results. 4. For search terms- why 'drug resistance' was used instead of 'antimicrobial resistance', which is used more commonly in this field? more synonyms of 'antimicrobial stewardship' to broaden search terms may increase the original pool of articles. 5. Inclusion of CINAHL, MEDLINE etc. libraries may offer more comprehensive literature search, which may have more qualitative articles than PubMed and Embase. 6. How findings were extracted when articles included multiple sites (e.g. studies across LMICs, studies including South Asia and another region). 7. Finally, the results section can be broken down in subtopics to help the reader in understanding sub themes within broader themes. ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. |
Revision 1 |
Drivers of inappropriate use of antimicrobials in South Asia: A systematic review of qualitative literature PGPH-D-23-01910R1 Dear Dr Murray, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Drivers of inappropriate use of antimicrobials in South Asia: A systematic review of qualitative literature' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health. Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests. Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated. IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org. Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health. Best regards, Ferdinand Mukumbang, PhD Academic Editor PLOS Global Public Health *********************************************************** Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference): Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: N/A ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #2: No ********** |
Open letter on the publication of peer review reports
PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.
We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.
Learn more at ASAPbio .