Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 10, 2022
Decision Letter - Leonardo Martinez, Editor


Planning and commitment prompts to encourage reporting of HIV self-test results: A cluster randomized pragmatic trial in Tshwane District, South Africa

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Buttenheim,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 08 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled '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,

Leonardo Martinez

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

2. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data will be submitted to a repository upon acceptance.  We strongly recommend all authors deposit their data before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

3. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format and ensure that all files are under our size limit of 10MB.

For more information about how to convert your figure files please see our guidelines:

4. 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):

Reviewer #1: This study which investigated an important question relating to action following self-testing for HIV is very interesting. While the research question is very relevant, I found a couple of pieces not speaking to the correct design.

1. The study is given as a cluster randomized controlled trial yet the sample size calculation and the analysis is done at individual level.

2. The manuscript does not follow any reporting guidelines such as the CONSORT Extension for cluster randomized trials.

3. The results section is simply too brief.

4. The outcome measurement is not properly given.

5. The study population is not completely described i.e. the inclusion and exclusion criteria is not well described.

6. The comparator is not very clear: is it the enhanced SOC or just SOC and how the implementation was done may have biased results because the authors say that they did intervention first and SOC later on each day.

Reviewer #2: A well written manuscript which addresses an important topic of results reporting around HIVST. It has been well established that HIVST does work in finding hard to reach populations, but linkage and results reporting remains a problem as rightly highlighted by the author. Even though there was a rise in the results reported in the intervention arms as compared to the standard arm, it would have been great if the author gave us more information on the characteristics of the participants. I suggest an addition of 2 tables, 1 for characteristics of those who took kits and another for those who reported results. In this way, a comparison can be made to see if there is a difference between those who did and those who did not report results which is important in the context of who we should expect to respond to these interventions.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

[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, 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 Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Leonardo Martinez, Editor

Planning and commitment prompts to encourage reporting of HIV self-test results: A cluster randomized pragmatic trial in Tshwane District, South Africa


Dear Dr. Buttenheim,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Planning and commitment prompts to encourage reporting of HIV self-test results: A cluster randomized pragmatic trial in Tshwane District, South Africa' 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

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Leonardo Martinez

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health


Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

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 .