Peer Review History
Original SubmissionDecember 1, 2022 |
---|
PGPH-D-22-01887 Point-of-care prognostication in moderate Covid-19: analytical validation and diagnostic accuracy of a soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) rapid test PLOS Global Public Health Dear Dr. Chandna, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. As with all papers, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board. Based on our assessment, we have decided that the work does not meet our criteria for publication and will therefore be rejected. Specifically, the Authors describe a point of care validation analysis for soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) compared to ELISA for diagnosing moderate COVID-19. The abstract lacks key information, and it is not clear what the aim or hypothesis was. Also, there was no control group included. No gold standard is mentioned We are sorry that we cannot be more positive on this occasion. We very much appreciate your wish to present your work in one of PLOS's Open Access publications. Thank you for your support, and we hope that you will consider PLOS Global Public Health for other submissions in the future. Yours sincerely, Andrés F. Henao-Martínez, M.D. Academic Editor PLOS Global Public Health Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: [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.] |
Revision 1 |
Point-of-care prognostication in moderate Covid-19: analytical validation and prognostic accuracy of a soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) rapid test PGPH-D-22-01887R1 Dear Dr. Chandna, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Point-of-care prognostication in moderate Covid-19: analytical validation and prognostic accuracy of a soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) rapid test' 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 kindly also address the minor comment made by reviewer #1 regarding the limitation of the study. 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, Krutika Kuppalli, MD Section 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 #1: All comments have been addressed 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: The manuscript is clear it is presentation and discussion of data. The findings are important and relevant. The revision has been done thoroughly. One minor suggestion could be to add a sentence that a limitation of the study is that the RDT measurements were conducted on frozen plasma and not on fresh plasma as suggested by the manufactor. (The reference to freeze/thaw stability was conducted on ELISA, not on RDT). 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 #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes: David Amoah Afrifah ********** |
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 .